Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right and, along with many of his colleagues, he is a great champion of local businesses. That is why it was particularly disappointing that we saw so many of his colleagues shaking their heads in disbelief when they heard the shadow Secretary of State the other day refusing to support the EU-Canada trade deal and refusing to support the EU-Japan trade deal. He will recall that one of his colleagues said that if the Labour party is not prepared to support a deal with Trudeau’s Canada who on earth would it support a deal with.

Graham Stuart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does in supporting international trade. He is absolutely right. We work closely in partnership, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with, representative business organisations because we need to change the culture. Our assessment is that there are more British companies that could export and do not, than there are who can and do. The opportunity is there. The very welcome growth in exports over recent  years is to be applauded, but there is so much more we can do by working in partnership not only with representative business organisations, but with banks.

Graham Stuart: I am happy to give those assurances, but earlier this week we saw the Scottish National party—the hon. Gentleman’s party, under his leadership in this area—vote against a deal that fully supports the continuity of existing protections. It is interesting that the Scotch Whisky Association, and all the thousands who work in the Scotch whisky business, strongly support that deal, whereas the SNP opposed it.

George Hollingbery: It is a feature of the free trade deal that is currently being signed by the European Union, and indeed the commitment to this Government, that chapters will be included in all those agreements that will protect exactly the elements that the hon. Lady identifies. They are in the current arrangements that we voted in favour of earlier this week and will be in future trade deals.

George Hollingbery: I am very sorry to say, Mr Speaker, that I am not entirely sure that I understand the question, but I would like to correct one element of something I just said. Of course, the Opposition did not vote against both trade deals—they abstained on the Japan trade deal. I am afraid that I simply do not understand the question. All I know is that the trade deals that were  voted on and passed by the House this week contained elements that contained many of the protections that the Opposition have said that they want. There are chapters on labour rights and environmental standards, and there is protection for our public services, particularly the national health service, which, as I told the House on Tuesday, is protected from challenge by those agreements.

Liam Fox: Inasmuch as I am able to discern what it is, which the events of this week make extremely difficult, the answer would have to be no—not least because, in regard to trade, the Opposition Front Bench has become a caricature of a loony left party in seeming to regard Justin Trudeau as a lackey for global corporatism.

Kit Malthouse: Not at the moment, no. We have committed to enabling the introduction of split payments in Scotland, if it does indeed proceed. Work and discussions about split payments with the Scottish Government are ongoing, and I think the full truth of the complexity and the side effects of split of payments is now dawning, so we shall see whether it proceeds. If it does, we will review it. As I said, I will keep an open mind about split payments and we will see what transpires in future.

Victoria Atkins: The Government commissioned an evidence review into menopause, published last July, which highlighted the important role that employers can play in supporting women. Following that, the Women’s Business Council  developed a toolkit for employers, which enables employers to make the right adaptations to physical workplace environments, support flexible working, and raise awareness to help tackle this issue. To date, social media awareness-raising activity has reached nearly 300,000 people.

Kit Malthouse: As I have said in the past, we keep all our policies under constant review. I would say to him that one of the fundamental tenets of welfare reform is that the world of welfare should reflect the world of work and that people on welfare should have to take the same decisions as those who are in work, and that includes making decisions about the number of children they may or may not have. It is worth explaining that there are no current losers from the policy, but only people in contemplation.
On the particular issue of those who have children and what the hon. Gentleman calls the rape clause, we are trying to be as sensitive as we possibly can. I have made the offer to his SNP colleague, the hon. Member  for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), to meet her if she has ideas about a better way to handle it. At the moment, no one needs to make a specific declaration; we can signpost people to, and assist them in getting, the support they need in those circumstances. We are obviously very keen to hear from third-party organisations working with women subject to that appalling situation to make sure they get the support they need.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I welcome the launch of the nuclear sector deal, which is being held this morning in Trawsfynydd power station in my constituency. I congratulate local people and trade unions, and especially Prospect rep Rory Trapp of Blaenau Ffestiniog, for working to safeguard the tradition of innovative and safe energy production in the heart of Welsh-speaking Meirionnydd. The people of Wales seek to be equipped with the means to overcome poverty. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction that will strengthen our capacity to generate and to profit from exporting energy, offering once again the prospect of well-paid technology jobs in a region that presently suffers some of the lowest wages in the UK. I call on the Minister to do all he can to work with the Welsh Government, Cyngor Gwynedd, Grŵp Llandrillo Menai and higher education to develop Trawsfynydd to its full economic potential, and I specifically call for final site clearance of the two decommissioned reactors to enable that.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that I spent seven happy years as a councillor in Lliw Valley near Swansea in south Wales? I am therefore very disappointed that this morning’s announcement, which I welcome, could not have been combined with the decision this week on the Swansea bay barrage scheme. While I am in favour of small nuclear energy initiatives and hope they will spread, is there not still a question mark over what we do with nuclear waste? We still have not resolved that, and it is still a real problem and a real challenge for our society. Will he give an assurance that we will have an answer?

Sam Gyimah: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is a huge opportunity for Scotland in this deal given how much Scotland participates in the supply chain. As we are doing with the devolved Government in Wales, we will be working with all the devolved Administrations, where this is relevant to them, to make a success of this deal.

Andrea Leadsom: The business for next week will include:
Monday 2 July—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on estimates relating to the Ministry of Justice, Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Tuesday 3 July—Estimates day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on estimates relating to the Department for Education and Her Majesty’s Treasury that relate to grants to the devolved institutions.
At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of trustees to the House Of Commons Members Fund.
Wednesday 4 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Ivory Bill, followed by Opposition day (allotted half day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party, subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 July—General debate on the principle of proxy voting, followed by a debate on a motion on the future of the transforming care programme. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 July—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing  9 July will include:
Monday 9 July—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by proceedings on the Northern Ireland Budget (No.2) Bill.
Alongside the news that the EU withdrawal Bill received Royal Assent, there are a couple of other things to celebrate in Parliament this week. First, the House of Commons Library reaches the ripe old age of 200; that is 200 years the House has benefited from this crucial service and for that we are very grateful. Secondly, the “Voice and Vote” exhibition has launched in Westminster Hall and is open right through to October. Visitors can see just how far women in politics have come since they were hidden behind the brass grilles above this very Chamber. In this Vote 100 year, it is bound to be a hugely popular event. I hope many will come to Westminster to relive those achievements. Finally, it is National Democracy Week next week. There is a huge programme of events taking place right across Whitehall and I look forward to being a part of it.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business; we are back to a week and  a day.
When the Leader of the House tables a change in Standing Orders, will she give the Opposition sight of the motion? We did not have that when there was a change from three to five days in the estimates motion. There was no prior discussion through the Whips Office or the usual channels. Can she let us know the reasons behind the change?
May I also pick up on what the Leader of the House said about me a couple of weeks ago? She said I was not
“fulfilling the democratic will of the people of Walsall.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 1102.]
My constituency may have voted to leave, but one ward voted to remain and my job—and the job of all Members—is to balance the 48% and the 52%. Our duty is to act in the best interests of all our constituents and the whole of the UK. We have to hear the evidence on the impact. Perhaps she will rephrase that and wait for the Electoral Commission report on the leave campaign during the referendum. I am sure she will find time to debate that report in Government time and, in the meantime, join me in congratulating the excellent journalist Carole Cadwalladr in winning the George Orwell prize for her investigative work with the whistleblower Christopher Wylie, which resulted in an apology from Facebook and the collapse of Cambridge Analytica because they misused personal data.
Saturday is the International Day of Parliamentarism—I think that is how it is pronounced—a new day that was agreed by the United Nations, which adopted a resolution on the interaction between the UN, national Parliaments and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Of course, this Government voted down the fact that Parliament is sovereign last week. They do not want to give Parliament a final say. The Leader of the House will know that that had nothing to do with the negotiations; all that Parliament wanted was to be sovereign and to have a final say on the terms of the deal.
We need that final say because the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union first told us that there were no sectoral analyses, then, after pressure from the Opposition, he published them. He then said that there was no preliminary analysis on our exiting EU; then he published it. Now he says that there is a White Paper, but it is apparently written in invisible ink. We need to know when it will be published. Will the Leader of the House tell us when that will happen? Will she also tell us whether the Trade Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill will return before the recess? They seem to be stuck in a legislative logjam, and we do not appear to have anything to do after 9 July. Will she table the next stages of those Bills?
How do we mark Armed Forces Day on Saturday? The Opposition Labour party has called for proper investment in our armed forces so that the UK can retain its rightful place as a tier 1 military nation, and I am pleased to see that the Defence Secretary has now  joined us in making that call. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will make time for a statement on restoring our armed forces to a tier 1 military nation?
It was Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day yesterday. We have heard what the Foreign Secretary thinks of business, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care joined in last Sunday. The Tory leader in Wales has had to resign over his anti-business comments. Business leaders have rightly raised their concerns, in a measured way, about what they are going to do to plan for their workforce and for their companies. And, as if to underline the Government’s anti-business credentials, they have now turned off the switch on the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. This seems to be an anti-business, anti-innovative Government.
The Leader of the House has announced an estimates day on the NHS. When can we have a debate on Torbay—another council that is about to collapse? It was a pioneer in integrated care. As a member of the Health Committee, I visited Torbay, where I saw an integrated service that tracked “Mrs Smith” from the start of the process in social care, through the NHS and back out again. They told us that, when the Health and Social Care Bill became an Act, they would not be able to pool the budgets. When we went to Denmark, they wanted to look at our system. They looked at Torbay and reminded us about “Mrs Smith”.
The Government seem to be too busy fighting among themselves to fight for this country. We have the Defence Secretary at loggerheads with the Chancellor, who has had to concede to the Health Secretary, promising money that the Chancellor said he did not have. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that the Environment Secretary is talking nonsense, and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has apparently pulled a white rabbit out of a hat, rather than a White Paper. The Leader of the House has also joined in, saying that the Environment Secretary and the Trade Secretary are tearing to shreds the Prime Minister’s preferred option for the customs partnership. There’s loyalty for you.
I want to join the Leader of the House in talking about some positive aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is having a discussion on the political life of Nye Bevan. He will be speaking on the NHS in the Macmillan Room on Wednesday and, with your kind permission, Mr Speaker, hosting a reception in Speaker’s House. I also want to celebrate 200 years of the Library, which is absolutely fantastic. Again thanks to you, Mr Speaker, there will be a reception in Speaker’s House. I want to join you and the Leader of the House in thanking Melanie Unwin and Mari Takayanagi, who have taken four years to curate the “Voice and Vote” exhibition in Westminster Hall. I, too, encourage all Members and their constituents to visit that fantastic exhibition.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady has asked about estimates day debates. I am sure she is aware that estimates are laid annually rather than sessionally. This means that the Government must request supply from the House twice a year. The motion tabled by the Government and agreed by the House on Tuesday made provision for next week’s debates to take place in line with the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and in accordance with  Monday’s resolution of the House about the subject of the debates. She claimed not to know any of that, but I am sure that, if she were to ask, she would find that those are the clear conventions of the House.
The hon. Lady asked about the legislative programme and claims that no progress is being made. I say to her again, as I often do, that 36 important Bills have been introduced so far this Session; that is absolutely in line with other parliamentary Sessions. Nineteen Bills have been sent for Royal Assent already, hundreds of statutory instruments have been passed by each House, and seven draft Bills have been published.
The hon. Lady likes to imply that important business is not going on, yet just yesterday we had the Second Reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill, which seeks to make it harder for young people to buy knives and acid online and seeks to ban possession of such awful things as zombie knives, knuckle dusters and “death stars”. Those are incredibly important domestic pieces of legislation that really matter to the country, if not the Opposition. Our energy price caps Bill is on track; the Tenant Fees Bill will make renting easier and fairer; the Ivory Bill will introduce the toughest ban in the world; and our Data Protection Act is already making sure that the UK maintains our gold standard in data protection. It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady does not seem to be aware of this important legislation.
The hon. Lady says that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is an affront to Parliament; I do not think that of a Bill on which more than 280 hours of debate took place, to which there were more than 1,400 amendments and to which both Houses have contributed to significant changes, or of a Bill that will give certainty for citizens and businesses in this country as we leave the EU in March 2019. That is what the people of this country, including in Walsall—the hon. Lady’s part of the country—voted for: a democratic vote of the majority of the people. All Members across the House should welcome that.
It is a great shame that Opposition Members are all over the place—some in the Aye Lobby, some in the No Lobby, some sitting on their hands and some disappearing from this place altogether. I found it extraordinary that the Opposition chose to vote against programme motions earlier this week, but then disappeared; having lost the programme motion, they had nothing further to say on the subject. It is absolutely astonishing—on the part of not the Government, but the Opposition. They do not know what they are doing.
The hon. Lady talked about the armed forces, and I absolutely pay tribute to their amazing work at this important time. But again, I gently point out that it is the Government side of the House that has enshrined the armed forces covenant in law; has provided nearly £500 million from LIBOR bank fines to support armed forces charities and other good causes; has provided £200 million for the Forces Help to Buy; has allowed £68 million on upgrading service family accommodation; and is providing far more support for veterans than ever before. The armed forces do a fantastic job and we will continue to support them. We will continue to have a £37 billion defence budget and to be the second biggest defence spender in NATO. That is incredibly important for the security and safety of people in this country.
The hon. Lady asks about business and Brexit. She likes to suggest, as Opposition Members have, that   not much consultation is going on. I can tell her that Department for Exiting the European Union Ministers alone have undertaken more than 500 recorded engagements with businesses since July 2016. The Secretaries of State for DExEU and for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, along with the Chancellor, have an EU exit business advisory group, involving the directors general of the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the EEF, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. We have hosted many CEOs from a range of businesses across the economy at events at Chevening House.
It is this Government who are listening to the needs of businesses; that is why we have negotiated for an implementation period, which was welcomed by those businesses. That is absolutely vital. It is a great shame that Opposition Members cannot seem to decide what they support. They are certainly not supporting a successful Brexit for the United Kingdom in March 2019. Fortunately, it is this Government and our Prime Minister who are determined to achieve a Brexit that will work for all parts of the United Kingdom.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I fully endorse what she said and what you said, Mr Speaker, about the Voice & Vote exhibition in Westminster Hall.
As Gareth Southgate’s finest get ready to face the might of Belgium, the Prime Minister, almost ironically, is off to Brussels today. I wonder who will fare best in the battles with Barnier’s barmy bureaucrat army. Where Gareth Southgate has Harry Kane as his mercurial, talismanic front man, the Prime Minister has, well, the Foreign Secretary and his woeful disciplinary record and tendency to mouth off at his own side before being offered up for transfer. Where Southgate’s side is a well-organised, disciplined unit, the Prime Minister’s could not be more shambolic and undisciplined—they are more likely to score a series of own goals. As all the St George’s flags go up today, we can all join in: we only sing when we’re leaving.
May we please have a debate on all this dark money that is running rampant through some political parties in this House? Earlier this week, an investigation by BBC Northern Ireland shone a shocking light on the practices of former Scottish Conservative vice-chair Richard Cook and some of the leave campaign’s funding. The investigation raises further questions about donations to the Scottish Conservatives.
The shady Scottish Unionist Association Trust has given or loaned some £319,000 to Conservative candidates in Scotland. This trust has no official address and no history of transparency but has made donations to at least two Scottish Conservative Members. I have asked the Electoral Commission to fully investigate the Scottish Unionist Association Trust—this murky organisation has been bankrolling the Tories in Scotland for the past few years—but we need a full debate on this dark money, as I fear we have seen only the tip of the Scottish Tory dodgy donations iceberg.
Lastly, the Scottish schools have broken up for the summer holidays. Whereas Members representing English constituencies will again benefit from being able to spend the full summer holidays with their school-age children, we from Scotland will not. On behalf of all Scottish Members here today, I thank the Leader of the House once again.

Andrea Leadsom: Sorry, but I did feel some sympathy there. We will absolutely take on board the hon. Gentleman’s request for as much notice as possible on Backbench Business Committee days in the run-up to the recess and in our September sitting. I will take that away and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. The hon. Gentleman also raises the important issue of adults with learning disabilities. He will be aware that the subject has serious implications for the charities sector, with many organisations facing significant bills should what he suggests be the solution on back pay. The Government are looking carefully at the issue, which could be a useful subject for a Backbench Business Committee debate—he could apply to himself for that. I know the Government would welcome any debate on a resolution to this very tricky issue.

Andrea Leadsom: As ever, my hon. Friend is raising what sounds like an excellent constituency event. May I particularly commend him, because, as an assistant referee, he could right now be taking part in the World Cup, but he has chosen instead to be here in this place representing his constituency? I join him in congratulating all those involved in the European pipe band championships. I know how successful they have been with countless hard-working volunteers. More than 100 bands from across the world are due to attend on Saturday. I do wish them all a fantastic day.

Chris Green: Responsible waste management is vital to increase recycling and reduce landfill, but it ought not to be a torturous or overly  expensive process for small businesses. Some create very little waste, which can be managed alongside domestic refuse at no additional cost to the business or the environment. Can we have a debate on Bolton Council’s extreme interpretation of the law, which results in less recycling, more landfill, small business fines and harassment?

Andrea Leadsom: I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have been delighted to lose her stake, because it enabled England to face Belgium this evening, but nevertheless I am of course delighted to join her in congratulating her local community football group. It is true that sports of all sorts, but particularly football clubs, can engage young people and communities and do so much for their local communities. I wish them every success.

Clive Betts: I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time today for me to present the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Health and Social Care Committee joint report on long-term funding of adult social care.
In 2017, the then Communities and Local Government Committee undertook a lengthy inquiry into adult social care. We concluded that spending on social care would need to rise significantly in the coming years, and that after successive failed attempts at reform, political parties across the spectrum needed to be involved in the process of reaching a solution. With that in mind, we returned to the issue in a joint inquiry with the Health and Social Care Committee, aiming to identify funding reforms that would be supported by the public and politicians, and to feed its findings into the Green Paper. I thank all members of both Committees for the constructive  role they have played, and particularly the Chair of  the Health and Social Care Committee, who is so knowledgeable on these matters and with whom it has been a genuine pleasure to work on this inquiry.
To find out the public’s views on how social care should be funded, we commissioned a citizens’ assembly, which I understand is the first held by the UK Parliament. Following a process of learning, deliberating and decision making, which took place over two weekends in April and May, a representative sample of nearly 50 members of the public was asked how best to fund social care. We have listened carefully to the assembly members’ views. They have been vital in informing our thinking, and are reflected throughout our report. We have taken the unusual step of specifically addressing our recommendations to both sides of the political divide, asking that both Government and Opposition Front Benchers accept them.
What are the challenges facing social care and what funding is required to address them? The critical state of social care and the very serious consequences for people who receive care, and those who do not, and their unpaid carers and families, as well as the NHS, is well documented. The evidence was clear that the combination of rising demand and costs combined with reductions in funding to local authorities has placed the social care system under very great and unsustainable strain.
Despite the welcome additional funding provided by the Government in recent years, local authorities face a funding gap of around £2.5 billion in 2020. This has been confirmed by the National Audit Office, the King’s  Fund and the Nuffield Trust, as well as the Local Government Association. The consequences are extremely serious and widespread, leading to people going without the care they need, and the time and quality of care not being sufficient for many who receive it, leading to unpaid carers having to step into the breach and placing significant pressures on care providers and the care workforce.
A witness to the inquiry, Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the 2011 Dilnot commission, told us that the system was consequently now at risk of “fairly significant disaster”, which were very strong words indeed. We concluded that considerable extra funding in the order of many billions of pounds would be needed in the coming years for the following reasons.
We need to meet the funding gap that I just referred to and we then need to provide additional funding to meet future demand. The personal social services research unit at the London School of Economics projects that spending on both social services for older people and younger adults will more than double by 2014, even without the improvements to the service that we suggest. It is also important to meet the care needs of a wider group of people—not just those whose needs are critical or substantial, but those who have moderate needs that are currently largely unmet. Age UK estimates that around 1 million who need care currently do not get it. Finally, and very importantly, we need to ensure that the care provided is good care from a stable, well-paid and well-trained workforce and viable care providers.
The difficult question for the Government and the Opposition to grapple with is where the additional funding for adult social care and social care for people of a working age with disabilities should come from, what it should be spent on, and how the care should be delivered. On care provision, we are strongly of the view that the responsibility for the delivery of social care should continue to rest with local councils at a local level. Social care provision should not, however, be seen in isolation. There is a need for better integration at a local level particularly within the NHS, as well as housing services. After all, most people receiving care get it in their homes. Integration should be seen not as a matter of bureaucratic convenience, but as a way of improving the care that individuals receive. The integrated care partnerships and health and wellbeing boards have an important role to play in that.
Our citizens’ assembly members expressed strong support for a social care system that, like the NHS, is free at the point of use. We acknowledge that this would increase costs substantially and be unlikely to be affordable immediately. We believe, however, that it is an ultimate objective for the personal care element of social care to be delivered free to everyone who needs it, and that accommodation costs should continue to be paid on a means-tested basis. This direction of travel should begin with the extension of free personal care to those deemed to have critical needs.
Now for the important question: where should the funding come from? Given the scale of the additional funding that is likely to be needed, which I have explained, we recommend that a combination of different fundraising measures are needed at local and national levels. At a local level, there should be a continuation for the foreseeable future of the existing local government revenue streams. We recommend that, in 2020, this funding is enhanced  through using the additional revenue from 75% business rate retention, rather than the Government’s proposal to use the money to replace grants such as the public health grant. In the medium term, we recommend a reform of the council tax valuations and bands to bring them up to date. As other funding streams develop, the contribution from council tax and business rates to social care funding could reduce, allowing councils to better fund other important services.
However, local government funding will only ever be one part of the solution for social care, given the scale of the challenge. It is clear that extra revenue will also need to be raised nationally to be spent on local provision. The citizens’ assembly was strongly in favour of any extra taxation being earmarked, wanting the clear assurance that the money raised would be spent on social care. We therefore recommend that an additional earmarked contribution, described as a “social care premium”, should be introduced, to which employers, as well as employees, would contribute. For fairness, it would be paid on earnings above a threshold and with the current national insurance limit lifted. We suggest that this premium could either be as an additional element to national insurance, which would ensure the accountability desired by the public and the citizens’ assembly, to be placed in an appropriately named and dedicated fund, and regularly and independently audited, or be paid into independent insurance funds, similar to the German model.
We strongly believe that a funding solution must fall fairly between generations and therefore recommend that those aged under 40 should be exempt from the social care premium, and that it should also be paid by those who are still working after the age of 65. We also recommend that a specified additional amount of inheritance tax should be levied on all estates above a certain threshold and capped at a percentage of the total value. This is intended to avoid the catastrophic costs for some individuals, who currently have to lose the vast majority of their assets, including their homes, to pay for care costs. It would pool the risk and spread the burden more fairly, a key recommendation of the citizens’ assembly. My view is that, if everyone who can afford it pays something, no one should have to lose everything.
After successive attempts at reform, the forthcoming social care Green Paper must be the catalyst for achieving a fair, long-term and sustainable settlement. It also ought to recognise the care needs of those of working age with disabilities, as well as the care needs of the elderly. To ensure that, we recommend that our work should now be taken forward by a cross-party parliamentary commission.
I say, on behalf of both Select Committees, to Government and Opposition Front Benchers that if we, on a cross-party, cross-Committee basis, can unanimously reach difficult decisions and make clear recommendations, can they not do the same? Use our proposals as a basis for building the wider consensus that we need to create a long-term, sustainable funding solution for those who need care now and in the future.

Clive Betts: I thank the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Health Committee—I think on this occasion, my hon. Friend, because we have worked on a friendly basis on this inquiry. She is absolutely right. One of the important recommendations is about trying to extend the scope of care provision to include those with moderate needs. If we provide care for them, it is quite likely that we will stop them from getting into the substantial and critical phase and ending up in hospital in the first place. In terms of the NHS, it is about stopping people getting into hospital by getting them proper care and having care available for people in hospital, so that they do not have delayed discharges. In those two ways, that can be beneficial. Of course, we can also join up services. Can the NHS district nurse who goes into someone’s home and looks at their needs not assess their care needs at the same time? Can we not get that sort of joined-up approach?
It was remiss of me not to thank the staff, as the hon. Lady did, and I will name Laura and Tamsin. The work they did on this was exceptional. To produce a report of this quality in the time available was absolutely first-class, and we should congratulate them on it.

Liz McInnes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the report and on the work of the Committee to deal with this very difficult subject. In my constituency, we have a problem with nursing care homes closing and being converted into residential care homes, because of a problem with recruitment and retention of nursing staff. I am glad he mentioned that the care being given has to be good quality. Will he say how the increased funding would help with that situation and give us the nursing home beds we need?

Clive Betts: Absolutely. Most people receive care in their own home. The Committee’s report into housing for older people looked at the nature of the home. It showed the importance of the warmth of the home and the ability to get around the home—trip hazards and so on. Means-testing for the disability facilities grant relates to means-testing for care provision and other benefits, so they need to be properly integrated. Another recommendation in the report was that where means tests exist, they need to be joined up together.

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the Chairs, the members and the staff of both Committees, and congratulate them on producing an exceptional document. I also congratulate them on their extremely collaborative approach to their work, which is incredibly refreshing. For too long this issue has been used as a political football to be kicked around, but I am afraid it is too late for that now. We no longer have that luxury; we must reach a sufficient settlement. As other Members have pointed out, successive Governments have failed to address this issue. The Committees’ consultative, collaborative and constructive approach has been very positive and has been warmly welcomed, as, indeed, has been their engagement with the Citizens’ Assembly.
As has been made clear by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we want to integrate plans for social care with the new NHS plan that the Prime Minister announced recently. It would not make sense to publish it before the NHS plan has even been drafted, so our Green Paper will be published at the same time as the plan. It will cover the Government’s proposals on a wide range of social care issues, including, but not limited to, the need for the social care market to be sustainable for the future. It will also build on policies such as our “Carers action plan”: we will, for example, consult on proposals to provide better support for unpaid carers.
The report will be incredibly valuable to our work. It will enhance our plans for the Green Paper, and will ensure that it can offer people a sustainable future and the knowledge that as they approach their later years, they will do so in security and safety and with quality provision.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to present the Sixth Report of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the Withdrawal Agreement and negotiations on a future partnership. I am grateful to all those who gave evidence to the Committee, including two Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union—and it is good to see a third here today. I am also grateful to the terrific team who support us in our work, and to all the members of the Committee. On occasion we are not able to agree on everything, but that is the nature of Brexit.
The Committee thought that it would be helpful to the House to set out the task that will face us as the process of leaving the European Union unfolds, and that is what the report covers. Let me say first that time is very tight. Even if we secure a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration at the October Council—and that must now be in doubt—the Committee will expect to take evidence from the Secretary of State as soon as possible thereafter so that we can report to the House. That would probably take us to about mid-November for Parliament’s debate and meaningful vote to approve the agreement. We recommend that the debate should last at least five days, which is the amount of time that was provided in 1971 for the House to debate whether we should join the common market.
This will be a very important moment, and the Committee believes that the debate will need to be managed in a way that gives the House an opportunity to express its opinion clearly. We recommend that the Business of the House motion should make it possible for the Speaker to select a series of different amendments, and we are asking the Procedure Committee to advise on how that could best be done.
If this House and the other place approve the withdrawal agreement, the Government will introduce a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give effect to it in UK law. The Bill will have to receive Royal Assent before we leave the EU, because otherwise the UK would be bound by the agreement without the legislation to implement it. That would put the country potentially in breach of international law, and would create legal uncertainty for businesses and citizens.
We could have just three to four months, or approximately 60 to 70 sitting days, in which to pass the Bill. Given that it took more than 11 months for the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to complete its passage, that is not a lot of time for the scrutiny that will be required. We then need to add to that the 21-day CRaG process—which relates to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—for the ratification of treaties, which is likely to take place in parallel with the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, and the time required for other Bills to do with Brexit, and statutory instruments that will need to be passed before exit day. We shall be legislating for a new immigration system, a new customs system, new systems for agricultural support, a new  legal basis for management of our fisheries, and lots of other things. When we consider all that, the scale of the task becomes very clear.
Now, let us imagine for a moment that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are not finalised at the October Council. Given where we are, that would not be surprising. Indeed, the draft conclusions from the European Council suggest that there will not be a breakthrough in negotiations today or tomorrow. On the contrary, the EU is saying that we need to speed up the process—although I would observe that it takes two to move faster—and it wants much greater clarity about what the UK is seeking for the future partnership.
The fact that, two years after the referendum, Ministers have yet to reach agreement on what kind of customs arrangements they would like with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partner reminds us how much more is still to be done. It is also a cause of growing concern to business, as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, and there is still no agreement on the backstop to prevent the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Today’s European Council was once billed as a “make or break” meeting on the Irish border, on which progress would be needed to keep the negotiations on track, but that does not seem likely either now.
If there is no agreement until November or the end of the year, that will leave even less time for Parliament properly to scrutinise the proposed deal and to put in place the required legislation by March 2019—and, of course, we are not the only Parliament that must approve the agreement. As the Committee heard from Guy Verhofstadt MEP last week, the European Parliament needs three months in which to consider and give its consent to the agreement before the EU can conclude it. He said that the Parliament must receive the deal by the end of this year, or it will not have enough time to vote on it by March next year.
Then we come to the meaningful vote in the House. If we approve the agreement, matters can progress, but what if we choose to place some conditions on our approval? What if we reject the agreement? What if the European Parliament rejects it? The Secretary of State has previously said that the House of Commons voting down the deal would mean the UK leaving without a deal, but the Committee does not accept that.
In considering an amendable motion, the House of Commons would have the opportunity to make its reasoning clear in any decision to reject the agreement or to place conditions on it. In such circumstances, the House would surely expect the Government to take full account, to seek to re-enter negotiations if required, and then to come back to the House with a further motion. That is why we say in our report that it is important for Parliament to be able to express its view clearly and advise the Government on how to proceed. The Government would then need to return to the House with any renegotiated text and resubmit the motion, because they cannot introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill until Parliament approves the agreement.
The Committee remains concerned that the looming deadline of March next year leaves very little room for manoeuvre. We call on the Government to publish details of their intended legislative timetable, the publication dates of any White or Green Papers, and any contingency  plans for handling a no-deal outcome. We reiterate the recommendation in our Third Report that the Government should be prepared to seek a limited extension to the article 50 period in the event that substantive aspects of the future relationship remain to be agreed, or if there is a lack of parliamentary consent to the withdrawal agreement, or if there is no deal. However, we do recognise that it is by no means certain that the EU would respond positively to such a request.
Finally, I turn to the negotiations on the future relationship. Assuming that a withdrawal agreement and political declaration is concluded, we will have only 21 months from the date of our withdrawal to the end of the transition period in December 2020 in which to turn a political declaration into legal text on the future relationship and for such a treaty—and it could be more than one treaty—to be ratified. I think we all know that the negotiators will be dealing with a task that is frankly unparalleled in its scope and complexity and in the detail that will be required. There is a possibility that this will prove insufficient time to do all that work. We therefore call on the Government to seek that a mechanism be put into the withdrawal agreement for the extension of the transition period if that is required. We also call on the Government to ensure that Parliament is given a meaningful vote on the final text of the agreement with the EU that will cover the UK-EU relationship in the years ahead.
The report says:
“The debate on the motion for approval of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration will be one of the most significant parliamentary debates in a generation.”
We all want to do that moment justice, and I hope that our report will assist the House in doing precisely that.

Philippa Whitford: Paragraph 19, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, have referred to the need for procedures to consult the devolved Governments on free trade deals with Europe, and indeed with non-EU countries. He has referred to the current little disagreement between Governments and Parliaments. In view of the importance of this for devolved areas and for premium Scottish products and businesses, does he think that the devolved Governments should have a place at the table when trade deals are being negotiated?

Andrea Leadsom: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Order of the House of Thursday 7 June has not been complied with; and accordingly refers the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
As I said during the debate on 7 June, the Select Committees of this House do vital work. The Government strongly support the independence of the Select Committee system. The House resolved on 7 June:
“That this House takes note of the Third Special Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee”,
and an Order of the House was agreed, that Mr Dominic Cummings
“give an undertaking to the Committee, no later than 6pm on 11 June 2018, to appear before that Committee at a time on or before 20 June 2018”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 492.]
That order has not been complied with. In accordance with traditional practice, it is for the Leader of the House to bring forward a motion when matters of privilege are in question, in order to facilitate a decision of the House. I therefore responded to Mr Speaker’s letter yesterday to confirm that I was seeking to raise this issue as a matter of privilege.
My letter followed the Order of the House of 7 June, and the decision of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), to report the non-compliance to the House by means of a vote entry on 20 June. I also understand that my hon. Friend has consulted colleagues and that there is broad support from members of the Liaison Committee for this matter now to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I reaffirm today the Government’s respect for the privileges of the House of Commons and our commitment to continue to uphold them, and I therefore commend this motion to the House.

Lilian Greenwood: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and I look forward to the  speeches by my fellow Select Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).
I am afraid that this is a rather sorry tale of inaction and buck passing. Fault lies not with one party but with successive Governments. The efforts so far have been inadequate and have been characterised by a lack of urgency. We know the problems that poor air quality causes. It affects our health and our environment and, as has already been said, as many as 40,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of poor air quality. The elderly, the unwell and the economically deprived are those most likely to be affected. The Government estimate that poor air quality costs the UK economy £27.5 billion a year.
We also know where the problem occurs. Key pollutants include nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5. More than 85% of air quality zones in the UK—37 out of 43—exceeded EU nitrogen dioxide limits in 2016. They should have been compliant in 2010, and the Government think it will be 2026 before all 43 zones in the UK are compliant. The World Health Organisation tells us there is no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter.
We know what causes poor air quality. It comes from several sources: industry, agriculture, homes, businesses and transport. Progress has been made, but it is stalling, and we are in breach of our legal obligations. Road transport is responsible for about 80% of nitrogen oxide concentrations at places in the UK that exceed legal limits, with diesel engines a significant contributor. The number of cars and vans on our roads continues to rise, and congestion has worsened, which increases pollution in itself. Although diesel cars have become less popular since the VW scandal was uncovered in 2015, for more than a decade before that the trend was in the opposite direction.
Transport also generates a significant proportion of particulate matter, from both combustion, and wear on tyres and brake pads. The Government have largely relied on cleaner vehicles to solve the problem, and limits on emissions, which are gradually tightened with each iteration of the euro standards, have helped us make some progress but not enough. Real world emissions have not fallen as promised and renewing the fleet could take 15 years or more. Policies to accelerate this process, such as scrappage schemes, may be needed. The science, historical evidence and impact are clear, but we still have not taken the action that is needed. Three times the Government’s strategy has been found wanting by the courts and the UK faces large fines by the EU Commission, along with other countries, for not bringing air quality within legal limits. We know the solutions that are needed, so it is shocking that successive Governments have failed to take the necessary action.
Nationally and locally there are examples of good things happening. In my own city there has been considerable investment in public transport, with major extensions to our tram network, and that was supported by the coalition Government. Last year, Nottingham’s municipal bus company introduced new biogas buses, and work has begun to retrofit its entire fleet of diesel buses by autumn 2019. Last week, on Clean Air Day, the city council launched an anti-idling campaign, mirroring similar action in other towns and cities across the UK. As I have said, the Department for Transport has  supported the development of low emission buses and taxis, has regulated maritime emissions, is supporting low emission vehicles and alternative fuels, and has lead work on the development of real driving emissions standards.
So what has gone wrong—why have we not solved this problem? The first issue we found in this regard was collaboration. That is not a problem that can be fixed by central Government or local government alone—they need to work together. At present, action is too fragmented, lacks clear leadership, and is not properly costed or resourced. There are no fiscal measures that support long-term behaviour change in a meaningful way. Local authorities are already responsible for meeting air quality limits but find it difficult to make changes, partly due to lack of resources, but partly because the changes needed are politically unpalatable. Our joint Select Committee report called for ambitious, co-ordinated, cross-departmental action. Sadly, the Government’s new draft strategy says almost nothing about emissions from cars, and we are still waiting for the Department to publish its strategy “Road to Zero”. That simply does not seem very joined-up.
It is vital that we encourage the uptake of clean technologies and remove the most polluting vehicles from our roads, but the Government rejected a more ambitious target for ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars before 2040. Today, Lord Deben, chair of the Committee on Climate Change, echoed our call in the drive to meet targets on carbon emissions. There are rumours that the “Road to Zero” will water down the commitment to end sales of diesel and petrol cars even further, and I hope that this latest intervention will prompt Ministers to think again.
The Government also need to accelerate the switch to ultra low emission vehicles, and that requires a network of charging points, particularly for rapid charging, and a strategy for on-street residential charging.

Rupa Huq: Does my hon. Friend agree that in London we have made significant progress, with the current Mayor bringing forward the ultra low emission zone and with the proposed toxicity charge? However, sadly, a lot of this seems to have been undermined by this week’s decision—I know she voted the right way—to have an extra runway in Heathrow. People in west London are lamenting that and I regret that a lot of the good work in her report was ignored by the Government’s national policy statement.

Andrew Selous: During the inquiry, we learned from Professor Holgate, the lead clinician from the Royal College of Physicians, that poor air quality is the second biggest cause of avoidable mortality in this country, after smoking. It cuts short some 40,000 lives a year, and we know from the British Heart Foundation and others that even a day’s exposure to elevated levels of poor-quality air can increase the likelihood of a heart attack.
Were any of us to go into our local GP surgery, we would very likely see in the leaflet stands or on the walls information on helping us to reduce our alcohol consumption or to cut back smoking or give up altogether, and hopefully we would see some information on coming off illegal substances. All are public health risks that are well known and well understood, and information on them has reached the level of our local surgeries. I challenge any Member present to go into to their local GP surgery and see what they can find about what to do about poor air quality, the second biggest cause of avoidable mortality in our country. We need to do more. GPs are under pressure and there is an awful lot that they need to do. We need education in the medical schools, we need the royal colleges to get on top of the issue and we need Public Health England to take a lead in this policy area. I shall say more about the latter shortly.
I occasionally feel that the issue of poor air quality is set up as a battle between the air-quality zealots on one side and on the other those who champion lower-income motorists and people struggling to get around in their ordinary lives. That is a completely false way to look at  the issue. Let us consider for a moment a woman who has to drive a van—probably a diesel van—for her living. She is often stuck in traffic but it is the only way that she can earn her living to put bread on the table for the children. It is possible that she lives near a busy road and her children go to a school that is also near a busy road. That lady needs to earn her living. She needs that van—it is probably the only van that she can get hold of to do her work—but at the same time her health is being damaged. So it is not about the people who are concerned about this issue on one side and on the other people who just see it as a bore from well-meaning busybodies who want to interfere and make their lives more difficult. It is a more nuanced and complicated issue than that. We have to help people to live their lives in an affordable manner so that they can earn their incomes without suffering huge damage to their health. I direct the House’s attention to what the California Air Resources Board did with a targeted scheme to help people on lower incomes to move to cleaner and less polluting vehicles.
If one thing comes out of my speech today, for the House and anybody who may be listening to it outside this place, I want it to be the fact, which is almost unknown and unrecognised by the public, that people in their car are up to 10 times worse off in terms of the damage being done to their health than they are outside on the street. It is the complete opposite to what most of our constituents believe. They believe that if they are in their car with the air conditioning on, they are relatively protected from all the horrible fumes outside.

Andrew Selous: I could not agree more. As someone who over the Easter recess cycled from my home to my constituency office along the busy A5, with juggernauts going fairly close to me, I completely understand what the hon. Lady says. We need safe cycling, and all the evidence shows that more people will cycle if it is safer. That is especially true for children going to school from all the new housing developments. When we build new housing, it is essential that we have safe cycle routes to the schools. That will result in healthier children, less childhood obesity and better communities.
Let me go quickly through the full list of health problems associated with poor air quality. It includes: premature birth; reduction in foetal growth; low birth weight; increased risk of death during the first year of life, particularly from respiratory illnesses; exacerbation of the effects of respiratory infections in young children; and effects on the normal growth of lung function during childhood. There is really shocking evidence that if a child’s lung capacity is damaged when it is young, it may never recover. From a social justice point of view, it is even worse, because it is the poorest kids who are breathing in the worst air. That is why this issue matters so much.
The list also includes cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, hypertension and stroke. Poor air quality also leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; pneumonia; accelerated decline in lung function and lung cancer in adulthood; the development of early onset asthma, which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned just now, as well as exacerbating asthma in those already living with the condition; impaired cognition; dementia—a big Canadian study showed a link with dementia; and other neuro-degenerative disorders as well as type 2 diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome. I think that we can say that that is a pretty concerning list.
Public Health England is a very fine body, which I admire very greatly. Its chief executive, Duncan Selbie, does very good work, but we need more action from the organisation. It needs to be engaged in this issue. What  it has done so far has been quite high level and quite strategic; it has not really come down to the level of the citizen, which is where we need it to be active.
One recommendation of the joint report of the Select Committees was that Public Health England should deliver an effective and appropriate campaign by this September, but Public Health England has told us that that is not possible in the timescale. That is despite the fact that the World Health Organisation has called this issue a public health emergency. I ask PHE to redouble its efforts on this issue and really try to get this information down to local levels so that people are, first, informed and, secondly, know what they can do to protect themselves best, and to stop being part of the problem and to start contributing to the issue.
I was pleased to see in the foreword to the Government’s 2018 clean air strategy, the statement by the Secretary of State that there would be a new goal that takes into account the World Health Organisation guidelines. There was also a commitment to primary legislation. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), cares a lot about these matters. When he responds, could he please give us a little bit more detail on this issue? There are specific World Health Organisation guidelines on the amount of particulate matter—PM 2.5—that we should not exceed on a daily basis. When the Government talk about taking into account the guidelines, I hope that they will go into that level of detail, bearing in mind what I said about the briefing from the British Heart Foundation about the increased risk of heart attack from elevated exposure to poor air quality just within a 24-hour period.
Winter pressure in the national health service is a huge issue that concerns every single Member here and I know the national health service is taking it extremely seriously as we head towards next winter. I have just been in the Upper Waiting Hall speaking to Dr Hugh Coe from Manchester University as part of evidence week, which is a very welcome intervention, as the top academics and scientists who know about these issues take the time and trouble to come down to Parliament to brief Members so that we are properly informed and can make good decisions on these matters. Dr Hugh Coe confirmed what the clinical chair of Bedfordshire clinical commissioning group said to me quite recently, which was that part of the increase in winter pressures, much of which is caused by older people going into hospital with respiratory problems, is from poor air quality. When we have cold weather in winter, the air is clammy and a bit foggy, which means that the pollution gets stuck in it. We breathe it in. It affects us more as we breathe it in. The same happens when it is very hot in the summer because the sun exacerbates the pollution. Again, I do not think that it is well known that there is this link between poor air quality, higher levels of respiratory problems and the winter pressures that we are all concerned about—a further reason for action.
My final issue is how we energise this issue at a local level. The Government talk about monitoring levels of air quality around schools. I would add old people’s homes as well. There are many other places where it is very important that we know the level of air quality. That information is really important to inform local residents, so that when they are looking to elect people  to public office, either to Parliament or to local authorities, they can let them know how seriously they take this issue and the fact that they want something to be done about it.
Finally, we had a meeting on air quality and active travel in my constituency not so long ago. An older lady who had never smoked and who had led a pretty healthy life came up to me and said, “I am here today. I have just been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Where did that come from?” She had never smoked. The chances were, I am afraid, that she got it from breathing in poor quality air. That will greatly affect the last years of her life. Sometimes we talk in statistics and percentages, but I want to end my contribution with that one lady and the impact on her remaining years.

Ben Bradshaw: If my hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, she is still a bit too young to have to resort to assistance with her cycling. One of the reasons that we both maintain our svelte shape is that we are both avid cyclists. I am putting off the moment when I have to resort to an electric bike, even given the very challenging hills in my Exeter constituency.
We are seeing progress in some places. As a number of colleagues have mentioned, London has already improved significantly, with big increases in cycling, but that is because of the congestion charge and the provision of designated safe cycle routes. Similarly in my constituency, when we were a cycling demonstration town under the Labour Government, there was significant investment in safe cycle routes. That has all dried up, however, and what support there is for cycling and walking is very patchy; it is not strategic. Again, when we asked the Ministers who came before our joint Committee if they knew how much money was being spent on cycling and walking and where, they simply could not answer the question. They are not monitoring it. There is no collection of the data. All of this needs to be much, much more joined up.
As others have already said, the only reason the Government are doing anything is that they have been forced to by the domestic and European courts. One of my real concerns—the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee touched on this—is that the Government seem to be trying to put off doing anything meaningful until we are out of the European Union and no longer subject to European environmental legislation or the European Court of Justice, with ordinary members of the public unable not only to demand but to enforce their rights through the courts if those rights are not honoured by our own domestic Government. I have a real concern that, if we leave the European Union, we will go back to being the dirty of man Europe, as we were in the early 1970s, before we joined.
Britain has a proud record of being a leader on public health. We had the Clean Air Act 1956, the seatbelt campaign and real success in tackling smoking and drinking, both of which have gone down significantly. However, on air quality, we seem to have a sort of stubborn refusal to act. I have been asking myself why that is. Is it because of a fear of the powerful motorists lobby? Perhaps, but as other hon. Members have said it is motorists inside the vehicles who are being polluted the most—10 times more than those people pushing their children in prams or walking up the street. They may think they are being polluted more, but people in vehicles are actually in much greater danger. A clear publicity campaign about that might persuade a few people to change their minds and their habits.
I believe that clean air is a human right. We have to get out of the mindset—as we have with smoking in public places, incidentally—that vehicles have a God-given right to drive around our towns and cities polluting and fouling the air, and causing serious health problems and costs to our country as a whole. I hope that, when the Government strategy is eventually published, it will have taken on board the concerns that have been raised by Members in the House and the concerns of the experts, and that it really will have some teeth in order to make the difference that this country and the people of this country deserve.

Nick Herbert: Last month, the World Health Organisation published a list of the 30 worst polluted areas—those exceeding their limits—in the country. These included, perhaps not surprisingly, London, Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester, but they also included Storrington in my constituency—Storrington was among the 30 worst polluted areas in the whole country. It is worse than that. Compare My Move reported earlier this month that, using the WHO data on the worst pollutants—fine particulate matter—the worst cities for air pollution were Bristol, Stanford-le-Hope, Swansea and Storrington; it called that a city. These places had a higher concentration of pollutants than London. Storrington was the worst place in the south-ast.
The “city” of Storrington is in fact a village, of just 7,000 residents, and it is at the foot of the South Downs national park. It is in very picturesque country and it is astonishing that it should be one of the places with the very worst air pollution in the country. The reason is the traffic that is forced through the village. It was declared an air quality management area eight years ago. A low emissions trial was set up, but it was abandoned after just one year because, ironically, there was no mobile phone signal available in that rural area, so the data could not be sent. Some 3% of the traffic through Storrington is made up of heavy goods vehicles, but they are responsible for 30% of the pollution.
Local people know that there is a very good reason traffic is so heavy through Storrington, and why the air pollution is consequently so bad when the traffic queues. The reason is that the traffic is forced up through the downs because of congestion on the A27, which runs at the bottom of the south downs and through my constituency. That was once said, or meant to be the coastal highway, but significant parts of it are not dualled and it has very serious congestion, including at Arundel. In consequence, the traffic aims to miss the congestion on the A27 and instead rat-runs through the historic town of Arundel in my constituency and up through the south downs and downland villages such as Storrington. That accounts for the terrible air quality.
There is, therefore, a very strong environmental case for trying to do something about that traffic. The obvious thing to do is to upgrade the A27 to make the traffic flow freely along what is in any case a very important route economically, as the east-west connection in the south of England. At last—this has been delayed for over three decades—we have a plan for the Arundel bypass. I am very grateful to the Government for announcing the funding for the bypass a few years ago, and Highways England has recently announced the preferred route for the scheme. There are of course some local objections to the bypass, as there always are, but my judgment is that there is overwhelming local support for it, not least because of all the traffic running up through the towns and the air pollution in places such as Storrington as a consequence.
It was, therefore, very surprising and disappointing when the South Downs National Park Authority announced that it would seek a judicial review of Highways England’s preferred route. This is an extraordinary position: a public body, using public funds and through proper consultation, has identified the best route for a bypass that the Government have announced funding for and say is necessary; and another publicly funded body, the  South Downs National Park Authority—paying absolutely no regard to the views of local people or local villages in the communities in the South Downs national park—has decided, on what is clearly a purely ideological basis, to seek a judicial review of the route and has tried to prevent it from happening simply because it touches a tiny part of the national park right at the bottom of it.
In fact, everybody knows that this will be a South Downs national park relief road. Highways England official projections show that annually there are 15,287 daily traffic movements on average through Storrington, causing all the congestion and pollution and that, with the Arundel bypass on the preferred route, there would be over 3,000 fewer traffic movements in the first year after the bypass opens—over 20% fewer—and by 2041 there would be nearly 6,000 fewer traffic movements, or 38% fewer. So the bypass would clearly prevent the problems of the traffic queuing in this downland village.
Despite that, we have this attempted judicial review. The meeting was not public. Notice was barely given of it. Where is the accountability for this decision? Why is not the South Downs National Park Authority made party to the collective decisions that ought to be taken by local authorities on environmental matters, including reducing air pollution? Why can it simply stand above that, when it is clearly of such environmental benefit overall to the south downs and the downland communities? Its actions are completely unacceptable, and local communities are rightly very angry at what it is seeking to do.
Another village in my constituency, Cowfold, is also over the statutory limits on air pollution. It exceeds both the EU and the WHO maximum levels. It is an even smaller village, of only 2,000 people, but it sits on the A272, and again there is queuing traffic. It was declared an air quality management area in 2011, but there has been no real action for seven years. Some 4% of the traffic is heavy goods vehicles, but they contribute 37% of the pollution. The parish council wants a very simple thing. It wants signs put up by the side of the main routes that run north and south alongside the village, the A24 and the A23, to discourage heavy goods vehicles from taking the route along the A272.
There are perfectly viable dual carriageway routes that go away from this road and village, and there are means by which to discourage heavy goods vehicles from taking this route, yet we have seen a complete failure by the relevant local authorities to take forward any initiative to do the simple thing of introducing these signs. West Sussex County Council says that there is no evidence to support the contention that heavy goods vehicle traffic would be affected by the signs wherever they might be placed. It needs a feasibility study, but there is no funding for one.
I welcome the Government’s air quality plan published last July—I am not churlish about it as other hon. Members are—because it represents a welcome step towards taking action in places such as Storrington and Cowfold. I note that the Government announced a £255 million implementation fund to support local authorities in conducting things such as feasibility studies, and I think £40 million of that was meant to be made available immediately, so can the Minister confirm that the fund is available to places such as Storrington and Cowfold, so that they can conduct feasibility studies, and that the clean air fund, which the Government also  announced, will be available to those local authorities if they then need to take measures as a consequence of the feasibility studies?
We cannot let this matter drag on. It has affected Storrington and Cowfold for well over a decade. We need energetic joint action by all the local authorities, and that needs to be supported, in the way the Government have suggested, by Government funding so that studies can be commissioned and action taken. At the moment, there has been inertia by all concerned, but when there are rural areas and tiny villages at the foot of the south downs with the very worst air pollution in the country, something is wrong. It is completely avoidable and it is time we did something about it.

Maggie Throup: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has great knowledge of this area.
I am delighted to speak in this debate, partly because I was a member of the joint inquiry that produced the report, but also because my family has been affected by a lung condition of unknown origin. My mother suffered from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a life-limiting condition diagnosed in about 6,000 new patients each year—it used to be 5,000 each year. Life expectancy from the time of diagnosis is as short as three years for half of those 6,000 people, with one in five surviving for five years—soon for longer, I hope, with the new treatments available. As the name suggests, no one knows what causes it. My mother did not smoke, so it was not that, but it could have been air quality—or, more correctly, poor air quality. We need to do whatever we can to tackle any root cause of lung disease, as no one should have to struggle for breath as my mother did.
I wish to focus on three areas. First, just yesterday I was talking to constituents of mine who had just brought a hybrid car. I was astounded when they informed me that there is only one public charging point in Long Eaton, one of my major towns, and that it is at a hotel, and therefore behind car park barriers. The joint inquiry highlighted the problem that there are too few charging points to support a wider uptake of such vehicles, and this rings warning bells for me. I can envisage a situation comparable to that which we have with mobile phones and broadband coverage—providers falling over themselves to provide services in highly populated areas, while  the more rural areas miss out. The patchwork approach to funding and delivering charging points simply is not working. I therefore call upon the Government to do whatever they can to facilitate the installation of adequate infrastructure, to support the UK’s transit away from polluting vehicles. I would appreciate an  update from the Minister today regarding the Government’s investment in electric vehicle infrastructure. The report’s recommendation for the Government to work with the National Grid and local authorities to identify the key practical barriers preventing a more rapid roll-out is, in my opinion, very valid.
My constituents yesterday also informed me that there are in the region of 30 providers, all requiring different apps to access their charging points. As petrol and diesel cars are phased out in the coming years, the practicalities of charging points also need to be considered.
Secondly, there was evidence in the report that it is of paramount importance for air quality monitoring to be carried out at key spots in local communities, such as near schools, hospitals and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned, care homes. The Government’s acknowledgment that those changes need to be made is key, and the monitoring is very welcome because, as with any issue, knowledge is power. Data collected as a result of that monitoring should be disseminated to schools, nurseries and hospitals, with clear advice of actions that need to be taken. That will also ensure that information can be available for families, empowering parents to make the right decisions for their children. As the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) highlighted, current data shows that a third of our children are living in areas of the UK with unsafe levels of particulate matter, so we need to take much more rapid action.
Thirdly, I shall discuss my local area. I have a combination of a wish list and an update on what is happening in Erewash and the wider Derby and Nottingham area. The World Health organisation has reported that both Derby and Nottingham are among the 44 cities in Britain that have air that is not safe to breathe. I therefore plead with local authorities to put tackling that problem at the very top of their agenda. HS2 in the future, and improvements in rail infrastructure such as Ilkeston’s new station, can help to reduce the amount of road traffic heading into our cities.
Derby, famous for “planes, trains and automobiles”, is a highly strategic area for research and development of cleaner, greener transport for the future. The next-generation Auris hybrid car is to be built at Toyota in Burnaston, safeguarding around 3,000 jobs into the 2020s. It has also secured an investment of £240 million in the plant there.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) of some of the initiatives that Nottingham city is taking, and I want to add a few items to that list. The University of Nottingham, in partnership with firms such as Rolls-Royce, is leading the way in R&D of cleaner, greener, more efficient engines. The university is also gaining a new £23 million research facility to drive breakthroughs in treatment and diagnosis of serious diseases, including respiratory conditions.
To return to Derby, the construction of a new nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre in Derby, which I mentioned during the urgent question today, would enable further research and development into clean energy, as the UK looks to civil nuclear as a way of securing its power needs for the future. That would  include exploring the viability of small modular reactors; as mentioned earlier, Rolls-Royce is leading the way in that as well.
Many exciting projects are being undertaken across the Derby and Nottingham corridor, and indeed throughout the country, that will make a contribution to improving air quality. However, we have no time to lose, so I urge the Government to do whatever they can to ensure that action is taken at scale and pace.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Several colleagues have mentioned the excellent work that Mayor Khan is doing, with the low-emission zones being very much part of his strategy to tackle air quality. That is a huge priority for his Administration, so the point was well made by my hon. Friend. The A406 is a very important artery for London.
I was just about to discuss the Thames itself. Not only are more tourists and commuters using it, but there is more construction traffic. The Thames Tideway tunnel is a good example of a major infrastructure project using the river to the benefit of Londoners. Chris Livett, waterman to the Queen, recently unveiled a fleet of new barges for not just this project, but others. The largest of the barges, of which there are a number, has a capacity of 1,500 tonnes. Each barge carries the equivalent of 50 HGVs—that is 50 lorries off London’s roads—reducing the risk of crashes, congestion, pollution and damage to our road services. This is all very welcome and cleaner, too, and as I say, that means every single barge. Any Member who is on the Terrace at any point over the next three years, enjoying a cup of coffee or tea or something else, will see those barges floating past and heading further along the Thames, where they will be creating environmental habitats for wildlife.
However, there is one issue affecting the Thames that is causing concern: the plan to build a cruise terminal at Enderby Wharf in Greenwich. I do not mean the proposal for the terminal, which is positive—anything that brings more tourists to London is to the benefit of London’s economy and the wider UK, because when tourists get here, they can travel more widely. The problem, however, is how to power these large vessels when they are moored on the Thames between Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) to address local residents’ concerns, and I pay tribute to his campaigning skills and efforts on his constituents’ behalf.
The majority five-to-four planning decision of Greenwich Council to approve the application, which did not require shore-to-ship power, has caused great consternation on both banks among residents. The EFRA Committee has looked at this matter in previous inquiries. Neither the Port of London Authority nor the Environment Agency, the Mayor of London, the Government, or the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which are all affected by the London Borough of Greenwich’s decision, can alter or amend its approval. The prospect of large cruise ships having to run their equally large diesel engines to power the vessels when they are moored on the river for up to 155 days a year is not positive. Ports on the west coast of the USA, in Scandinavia and in other parts of the EU are bringing in regulations to require shore-to-ship power, called “cold ironing”. Southampton is also looking at this so that ships take the energy from the national grid. Given the challenges of air quality in London, will the Minister advise the House what can be done to make the cruise terminal not just a success, but a clean success?
In conclusion, there is a real risk that we will lose the terminal due to the controversy over this issue. That would be greatly disappointing. We want the investment and the employment, and we would love the tourists. We just do not want it at a dirty price.

Iain Stewart: It is a pleasure to contribute to this very welcome debate, and it was a great pleasure, too, to serve on the Joint Committee. My first point is about that Joint Committee: having inquiries that more than one Select Committee can participate in is a very welcome development. I urge the House to consider how more such inquiries might be facilitated. Earlier today we had a statement from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee on long-term care. Bringing expertise from a range of perspectives is very helpful and I would like to see more of it.
There are five brief points I would like to contribute to the debate. The first picks up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), which is that too often we have silo thinking in government and a lack of effective cross-departmental co-operation. It goes further than just policymaking, however. There has to be a change in culture in how schemes are budgeted for and evaluated for cost-effectiveness. Increasingly, we find that where expenditure might lie with one Department the benefit will accrue somewhere else, so it will not show up in the  usual Treasury reporting of finances. For example, funding for a transport scheme would come from the Department for Transport or local government, but the Department of Health and Social Care might see the benefits because fewer people suffer conditions relating to poor air quality. I therefore urge the Government to start thinking a little bit more about that.
The second issue I would like to raise—I beg the indulgence of the House, but it is quite a techy point—is the Oslo effect. When we look at particle emissions from cars, too often we focus only on tail-pipe emissions. The Oslo effect occurs from invisible and odourless small particles going into the atmosphere as a result of brakes being applied, rubber tyres wearing down on the road, and even bitumen particles being thrown up when tyres hit the road. It may not sound a lot from any one individual car, but the cumulative effect, particularly in areas with high-sided buildings, can be substantial. Some studies show that only one third of particle emissions from cars actually comes from the tail pipe, with two thirds coming from those other sources.
This is a little bit counter-intuitive and I am certainly not arguing against the uptake of low-emissions vehicles and moving to hybrid and electric cars, but like for like, those vehicles are heavier than their petrol or diesel equivalents. Therefore, the Oslo effect is exacerbated by those heavier cars. Manufacturers need to be encouraged to look at making cars as light as possible and to research other substances that could be used in place of rubber for brake pads and tyres. It also affects buses, which are by nature much heavier vehicles. I encourage Members—I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on trams and light rail—not just to think immediately of buses as the best local transport solution. Trams may have a higher capital investment to begin with, but the savings they might deliver will accrue over a longer period of time. I also chair the all-party group on the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor, which will be developing many new settlements over the next few decades. Each of those new settlements will have to develop local transport plans. This would be an ideal place to start looking at new and effective public transport solutions that are, as other Members have suggested, not car-centric, and at making it easier for people to walk or cycle to their destinations.
That leads me on to my third point, which is on cycling. I too have started cycling in London, from here to my home in London which happily resides in the constituency of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I too cycle past the monitor that shows how many bikes go past each day. I absolutely encourage people to take up more cycling, but as the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) mentioned one of the biggest changes will come from electric bikes. There is a problem here. In my constituency in Milton Keynes, we have a network called redways, which are segregated from the main roads, for cyclists and pedestrians. At the moment, it is illegal to use an electric bike on them. I am trying to get to the bottom of whether this is a local authority decision or a more national matter.

Philippa Whitford: As an electric bike owner—I tried not to take offence at the comments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) about electric bike  owners—I know that there are two classes of electric bikes, one of which is allowed on cycle lanes and one of which is not. I wonder whether it is that difference about which the hon. Gentleman is hearing.

Jim Shannon: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on setting the scene for us all as he so often does, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). We have a clear difference of opinion on Heathrow, but that is by  the way; I appreciate her comments, and I appreciate the efforts of all the Members who have made valuable contributions so far and those who will do so later.
As a country sports enthusiast, conservation is a core principle that I adhere to, as do all country sports enthusiasts. How to improve our environment and preserve what we have is a key theme. Some 3 million people per year die due to air pollution worldwide and 40,000 people die early deaths as a result of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide in the UK every year, with the nitrogen dioxide limit values having been unlawfully breached since 2010, as has been said.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s “Tenth Special Report” lists many effects of exposure to air pollution, ranging from cardiovascular diseases to premature birth. It also states that it is children and older people who suffer the most, as exposure to air pollution can result in stunted growth or affect the normal growth of lungs or lead to a child being born prematurely and facing the risk of death during the first year of life as a result of respiratory illness. For older people, there can be accelerated decline in lung function and an increased risk of lung cancer. That means that pollution is becoming more dangerous for the population of the UK as we are an ageing society with about 23% of the population aged 60 and above. If there needs to be a reason for doing something and for this report being followed by Government today, that is it.

Tim Loughton: I had hoped to be present earlier to contribute to the debate, but may I, in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, ask if he will acknowledge that many of us face planning applications for large-scale housing and other developments in our constituencies—in my case, there is an application involving 600 houses and a new branch of Ikea which would lead to 2 million customer journeys a year on the busiest road in Sussex—yet air quality factors seem to feature very low in considering such planning applications? Does he agree that, for all the reasons he mentioned, these factors should receive a much higher priority in our assessment of whether applications are sustainable for the local population?

Jim Shannon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a major development application in my constituency at Comber town for 800 houses. Infrastructure is an important consideration: how the roads will work and whether they can take the increased number of journeys, and whether the schools and hospitals can take it. They are all critical factors, and air quality should be considered in looking at these big questions.
Given the vulnerability of older people to pollution, it is important to improve air quality so that we can reduce the number of deaths and address the issue. There should be Government support for renewable energy, which would limit the use of fossil fuels so that harmful substances such as nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide would not be produced in large amounts and air quality would be improved. That is the very issue that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to his intervention. I was supportive of the SeaGen initiative in Strangford Lough in my constituency, which would provide clean  energy. It was a really good project, and the pilots were successful but unfortunately the funding to take it further did not happen.
The formation of a thriving public transport system is a major way of improving air quality. I hail from a rural constituency in Strangford, where there are no trains or tubes. There are only buses, and they are infrequent owing to the low population in the area. That means that there is a lot of work to be done there. For some of my constituents, taking a five-minute phone call at the end of the day could mean that they return home an hour late. The bus service is obviously not as frequent as it is here in London and elsewhere. There must be greater ring-fenced funding for public transport in rural areas. This would allow public transport to run at a loss for a longer period, to enable people to understand that the public transport system could merge with their working day and work-life balance needs. This is about striking a balance in the rural community. Public transport needs to be financially viable but it also needs to provide a service.
I completely concur with the recommendation that the Government give priority funding to infrastructure that would help us to meet air quality objectives. Examples include the cycling and walking investment strategy, the Transforming Cities fund and the initiatives to support the uptake of ultra-low emissions vehicles. The Bus Services Act 2017 includes a range of measures to improve bus services through franchising and better partnership working. It is also great news that £48 million has been supplied for the new ultra-low emission bus scheme to enable local authorities and bus operators to purchase ultra-low emission buses and support infrastructure. I give credit to the Committee and its report, and also to the Government for the initiatives that they have set in place. That is not enough, however.
Infrastructure that aids in improving these programmes would help by reducing idling and journeys, with low-emission buses aiding the fulfilment of the programme and allowing for superior air quality throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This would improve the quality of life for those who may be vulnerable, and those who are vulnerable, to pollution, but there needs to be a focus on rural areas. With respect to those who have spoken so far in the debate, the majority have talked about urban areas. I am not saying that they should not do so, because that is where the problems are, but we need to look at the bigger picture and see how these problems affect rural areas as well. Comber town, which I mentioned earlier, is a small rural town, and the impact of 800 houses will be quite large. I am not saying that that should not happen; I am saying that we need to prepare for it. In the large metropolitan areas of the UK, the amount of road pollution is substantial. The initiative to introduce low-emission buses will not resolve that issue, but it will lessen its severity.
I agree with the response that indicates that there will be air quality monitoring in key areas of local communities such as schools, care homes and hospitals. In fact, this is already in place in Northern Ireland, where air quality monitoring is carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, along with district councils. Two monitoring stations, at Lombard Street in Belfast and Brooke Park in Londonderry, are the only stations that measure multiple pollutants, but many  other places carry out monitoring, making information widely available for all who need it.
I welcome the £3.5 billion investment that has been provided for the clean air strategy, which aims to cut all forms of air pollution, with recommendations from the World Health Organisation, and introduces primary legislation to grant local government the ability to take decisive action to solve any issues. We cannot ignore what is happening elsewhere in the world. The report focuses on what is happening in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there are other partners and countries across the world that need to play their part as well. If we are playing our part here, they need to play their part as well.
The biggest causes of pollution in Northern Ireland are road traffic and domestic emissions. These can be curbed, and many attempts are being made to do that. Less reliance on fossil fuels and more on renewable resources will allow Northern Ireland to decrease the amount of pollution emitted as a result of domestic life . If Northern Ireland adopted a clean bus programme, as I believe it should, and tried to convince as many people as possible to take public transport, the pollution resulting from road traffic would be curbed as well, which would improve the overall air quality of the country.
Furthermore, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here has recommended the establishment of a new environmental protection agency which would be tasked with holding the Government to account once the UK has left the EU. When that is done, will there be direct contact with regional Governments, Assemblies and Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It has also been recommended that provisions for the agency should be written into legislation, with powers, standards and enforcement mechanisms equivalent to those of such enforcement agencies in the EU.
Given the standstill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the environment is also losing out. The introduction of renewable energy schemes would help resolve the issue, as less reliance on and usage of fossil fuels will lessen pollution. The money spent on initiatives such as the beautiful Comber Greenway in my constituency, which allows people to ride their bikes safely from Comber into Belfast off the main roads, helps not only the environment but people’s health. That Sustrans project has been immensely successful. The newly improved, widened and lengthened Comber Greenway can now be enjoyed not only in Strangford but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—seven miles of walking, cycling and running.
Recent improvements have widened Comber Greenway to 4 metres along key parts of the route, helping encourage more people to engage in active and sustainable travel—a key aspect of the draft programme for government framework and a result of the recently published “Outcomes Delivery Plan”.
Comber Greenway is a highly used, traffic-free route for many cyclists, walkers and runners, connecting east Belfast with Comber. The investment of almost £600,000 should encourage many more people to consider active travel. There are hopes to further extend Comber Greenway towards Newtownards to allow more people in that  commuter town to choose a healthier and more stress-free way of getting to work, so that they help the environment and themselves.
These schemes are funded by infrastructure budgets as well as communities. They are a wonderful way of improving air quality and health. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is important that we do something to improve air quality not only in towns, but in rural communities.

Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend is exactly right and we need to talk about that much more. When we get into the detail of what is being said on not just plastics, but particles and air quality—the air we breathe and the things we throw away—we see that more and more education can produce better results.
In today’s debate, we have heard far too many examples of young people being exposed to harmful levels of particulate matter, as well as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and low level ozone. Our young people deserve better than breathing poor air, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is right to say that breathing clean air should be a human right. Exposure to PM2.5 should not exceed 10 micrograms per cubic metre of air, according to the World Health Organisation, but in my Plymouth constituency the figure is 12 micrograms. In Saltash, just over the river, it is 11— the annual mean is 18 and 15 respectively.
Prince Rock Primary School, in my patch, knows all about that, as it is located on a busy road. We have heard from many other hon. Members about schools close to busy roads that are affected by poor air quality. Does the Minister have a similar school in his constituency? How many other Members have schools in areas of illegal air quality? The air quality close to our schools does matter. It matters to our young people. What is being done to educate teachers, children and parents about the risk of air pollution? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned, turning engines off while idling can help, and walking or cycling to school can make a positive difference. These things all add up, but if initiatives such as the daily mile are through areas with poor air quality, the effect and positive contribution of that work can be limited. All our children deserve to breathe clean air.
The Government must not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. That is why what we have heard today about the VW emissions scandal should concern us all. The failure to ban diesel and petrol engines early enough was also mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Britain must wean itself off dirty diesel for cars and trains. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted, the British Heart Foundation has found that even short-term inhalation of elevated concentrations of particulate matter increases the risk of heart attack occurring in just 24 hours, but the UK’s current legal limits for particulate matter are much less stringent than those of the World Health Organisation.
The flagship measure in the Government’s July 2017 air quality report was a pledge to ban new sales of conventional diesel and petrol cars by 2040. That is 22 years and more than four full-term Parliaments away. I wager not many of us will be in the House in 2040, such was the long-grassing of the commitment to finally get that introduced. However, it did not go far  enough because hybrid sales would still be ignored. The Government have said themselves that
“almost all new cars and vans sold need to be near-zero emission at the tailpipe by 2040”
if they are to hit their air quality targets.
The Government’s lacklustre pledge was criticised by Mayors such as Sadiq Khan and Andy Street. We are in the slow lane when Britain should be leading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South highlighted so expertly, the plan for the UK to ban petrol, diesel and most hybrid cars by 2040 has been watered down, with Ministers now referring to it as a “mission”, and the much trumpeted “Road to Zero” strategy has been plagued with delays. Perhaps the Minister could explain what a “mission” is. It is not quite a commitment, less than a pledge, certainly not legally binding, perhaps more than a hope and a prayer, but not quite a plan. A mission simply is not good enough.
The Secretary of State for Transport has cancelled rail electrification, something rightly criticised in the recent Transport Committee report. Without rail electrification projects, Britain’s railways are still going to run on dirty diesel for many, many years to come.
We have heard today that the Government far too often work in silos. It is simply not good enough for DEFRA to push out press releases on air quality while the Department for Transport is busy pushing back commitments on diesel engines and cancelling electrification schemes. It does not have to be like this. Members have highlighted the urgent need for a clean air Act, and I am proud to say that Labour would introduce one. We will act on air pollution and deliver clean air for the many, not just the few. That really matters because, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said, this is about social justice. The links are there for all to see between poverty and poor air quality, and between the injustices of poorer communities breathing in poor-quality air and the shame that far too little has been done to help them.
The fact that the poorest communities are hit by the worst air pollution should shame this Government and shame our society. This issue goes right to the heart of inequality: if someone is poorer, the air that they breathe is of a lower standard than the air breathed by someone richer. That should be simply unacceptable in 2018. We need to be bold and tackle this invisible threat head on. Communities throughout the UK are suffering now, and if we do not deal with this, we will leave future generations with poorer health, poorer outcomes and more pollution to deal with. That is simply not acceptable.
The Committee on Climate Change reported today, 10 years after the Climate Change Act was delivered by a Labour Government, and it has delivered a damning verdict on this Government’s record. On air quality specifically, it doubles down on the point that we are not doing enough to modernise our transport sector, particularly the car industry. The report finds that the UK is on track to miss its legally binding carbon budgets in 2025 and 2030, due to lack of progress on cutting emissions from buildings and transport in particular. Lord Deben has said that the Government’s pledge to end the sale of pure petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is not ambitious enough, and he believes it is essential that we move the target closer to 2030, as do the Opposition.
We are not short of soundbites or press releases from DEFRA about air quality, but I say to the Minister that  it is not the presentation that is at fault; it is the content, the substance, the plans, the action, the funding and the urgency. We all know what needs to be done, so I encourage him and his Department to get on with it.

David Rutley: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on his excellent speech from the Dispatch Box; I am sure we will hear much more from him in the weeks and months ahead. Well done. Like many other Members, he raised very important issues.
I congratulate those Members who secured and took part in this debate, particularly the Chairs and Members of the four Select Committees for their detailed and thoughtful joint report on this crucial issue. I recognise all the hard work that must have taken place to get four Select Committees to agree on a consistent position. That must be highly unusual, if not unprecedented. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) say “exactly” from a sedentary position. It is because it is an important issue and we recognise that. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that the Government have an active programme to tackle this issue, and that there is plenty of oomph in the tank—[Interruption.] Yes, let’s go with the battery.
In January this year, showing our ambition, this Government published our 25-year environment plan, which set out our vision to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. As we leave the EU, we have committed to ensure that our environmental standards are not only maintained, but enhanced.
The very first goal that we set ourselves in the 25-year plan was clean air. Its importance is beyond question. Air pollution—whether from transport, domestic heating or agriculture—affects us all. It is the fourth biggest threat to public health in the UK, after cancer, obesity and heart disease, and that has been highlighted by many Members today, not least by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and this Government are absolutely committed to tackling it.
There has been progress. Air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010: sulphur dioxide emissions are down by 60%, fine particulate matter, which we all have concerns about, has been reduced by 11%, and emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides are at their lowest level since records began. However, there is no doubt that more needs to be done, and that message has come across loud and clear from the eloquent contributions we have heard in this debate. We are doing more, and we will continue to do so.
We have committed £3.5 billion in funding already for cleaner air and cleaner transport. That money includes almost £1.5 billion to support the uptake off ultra low emission vehicles—one of the most comprehensive  programmes of support in the world. The UK is already acknowledged as a global leader in ultra low emission vehicles: one in eight battery electric cars sold in Europe in 2017 was made in the UK. We have said that we want every new car and van to be effectively zero emission by 2040 and that we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by that date.

Mary Creagh: A third of Norway’s vehicle fleet are electric vehicles—actual cars and not the bicycles that I was joking about earlier. It plans to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2025. This is a country that was founded on the oil and gas industry and a country whose sovereign wealth fund is now withdrawing from all oil and gas investments. Why cannot we show similar leadership in this country?

Advisory Committee: Business Appointments

Ronnie Cowan: I shall not be too long on my feet. A lot of the points I wanted to raise have already been covered and I have torn a cartilage in my right knee, so I am feeling the pain as I speak.
In the report there is a quote from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report of 2017, which mirrors closely a comment by its predecessor, the Public Administration Committee from 2012 when it says:
“The regulatory system for scrutinising the post-public employment of former Ministers and civil servants is ineffectual and does not inspire public confidence or respect. Our inquiry has revealed numerous gaps in ACoBA’s monitoring process with insufficient attention paid to the principles that should govern business appointments. The failures of governments in this regard have damaged public trust in politics and public institutions and led to repeated scandals. Consequently, we are recommending major reform.”
Since 2012, nothing seems to have improved. The failure of ACOBA to keep a lid on the revolving doors between Government and industry, including seeing the most senior Ministers take on jobs without waiting for approval, means that a system relying solely on the honour of former Ministers, without sanctions or consequences, is seen as optional and has now failed.
As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) mentioned, the situation with George Osborne has been particularly worrying. That the former Chancellor of the Exchequer has been taken on as an adviser to the BlackRock Investment Institute on a salary considerably in excess of his previous salary as Chancellor, in a sector that he was responsible for regulating, seems to show little care for even the appearance of propriety among Ministers. That the body that was supposed to be regulating the revolving doors between Government and industry had to hear that he had accepted a high-profile position as editor of the Evening Standard in the news, without him having consulted them or waited for clearance, shows that the system is broken. That the president of BlackRock could tell investors that there is no way of knowing whether Mr Osborne will
“draw on (or disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the organisation to which this advice refers) any privileged information”
that he gained from his time in Government shows that this is an absolute mockery.
As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the ACOBA chair, Baroness Browning, said to the Committee
“every bus driver and hairdresser you know”
should
“apply for any of those jobs. I can tell you factually, not one applied.”
Well, that is not surprising when the essential criteria for such a role include senior-level experience of at least one of the following sectors: the diplomatic service, the military or business. The criteria go on to mention
“Understanding of the machinery of government, preferably gained through practical experience at a senior level…Good communications skills…Personal integrity and strength of character”.
The report states:
“While the majority of these characteristics are not beyond your average hairdresser or bus driver, the first criteria, namely senior level experience in the Diplomatic Service, Military or business, may restrict applications from outside these sectors.”
Further, it was found that the problems identified in the system are “escalating” with increased numbers of public servants moving between the public and private sectors, with a number of high-profile cases resulting in a decline in public confidence in the system. Research by the High Pay Centre states that between 2000 and 2014, 600 former Ministers and top-level civil servants were appointed to over 1,000 different business roles. Its report raised concerns about the “corporate colonisation” of UK politics. Private Eye’s Richard Brooks told PACAC that
“former senior officials and their new employers see the”
ACOBA
“process as a mere rubber stamp”.
On what scale is this happening? In 2010-11, immediately following the general election, ACOBA advised 42 former Ministers regarding 95 applications and 38 civil servants regarding 63 applications. In 2015-16, immediately after  that general election, the equivalent figure was 33 Ministers regarding 123 applications and 36 Crown servants in relation to 110 appointments.
Since 2010, no former Ministers or civil servants have had an application refused by ACOBA—not one, nada, zilch, zero. Private Eye reported that by 2015, outsourcing public services cost the UK Government £120 billion and that despite poor records of delivery, G4S and Serco continue to win favour and contracts because of the revolving door and blurred distinction between employees in private companies and ministerial Departments.
Finally, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who unfortunately cannot be in his seat today, described ACOBA as
“nothing but a poodle without teeth or claws, bark or bite…totally and utterly useless”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1567.]
I could not have put it better myself. If he is watching today, we miss him and haste him back. The report recommends only a cost-benefit analysis. I would go further and say that a statutory basis for ACOBA is necessary for its continued existence, otherwise it will rightly be seen entirely as decorative.

Chris Matheson: I am most grateful for that clarification and the House will have noted it.
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is entirely necessary, but, to use the phrase of the moment, not at all fit for purpose. The clue is in the name. The A in ACOBA stands for “advisory” and it is clear that the committee is just that: it has no teeth and if its harshest sanction is to embarrass—well, that is scarcely a sanction at all. I wonder whether, as currently constituted, it is even designed to make a difference with a very narrow remit. As far as I can tell, ACOBA has never actually refused an appointment.
ACOBA is appointed by the Government to provide independent advice to senior Crown servants and to all former Ministers of the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments on any appointments they wish to take up within two years of leaving public or ministerial office. ACOBA applies the business appointment rules, which are largely procedural and set by the Government.   They have no statutory basis and there are no sanctions for non-compliance. The rules apply for up to two years after leaving office and they are applied with inconsistency.
It is a clear failure of ACOBA that it cannot adequately distinguish between different types of post-ministerial appointment, for example paid as opposed to unpaid work. One former senior civil servant recounted to me the story of when they left the civil service. They took a position on the board of trustees of a community group. It took months upon months for this voluntary position to be approved. Part of the delay was down to due diligence, because the trust was a charity. If charities and the Charity Commission can undertake due diligence and prevent an appointment pending such checks, why can ACOBA not do that?
Meanwhile, as we have heard, the former Chancellor George Osborne can take a job with BlackRock in the City of London and not even tell ACOBA that he was taking a job editing the London Evening Standard. I understand the same applies to the former head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, who was appointed to the European advisory board for a new US cyber-security firm, BlueteamGlobal, and did not even tell ACOBA. Because it is set up as an advisory and non-statutory committee, ACOBA finds enforcement difficult. I suspect that this is the reason it does not attempt to enforce. Indeed, it may be the reason it was set up in this way in the first place.
In addition to ACOBA’s toothlessness, there are further problems, for example with conflicts of interest. There are numerous, multiple examples of members of the committee declaring interests in firms to which the applicants were being appointed, but not recusing themselves from those cases. This included Mary Jo Jacobi, who has financial interests in BP but did not recuse herself from Vernon Gibson’s application, and John Wood, who has interests in BT, did not recuse himself from Keith Bristow’s commission with them.
ACOBA was also criticised by the former Public Administration Committee for having an “establishment” make-up—the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex raised this point. ACOBA is chaired by a Baroness and former Conservative Minister, who also works as a consultant for a company that looks very much like a lobbying firm. Other members of the committee include two Lords, a knight, a former general secretary of the First Division Association, lawyers and former senior civil service grandees. I go back to the evidence cited by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee about bus drivers or hairdressers. As he says, there seems to be no sight of them.

Chloe Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, because that is the guiding principle of this structure. There should be able to be public confidence that abuses are not occurring. There was a clue, I think, in his choice of words. He may have involuntarily used the words, “not necessarily”, but there is something rather important in that. We have a flexible system that means that there is the ability to make a decision not necessarily in one fashion or another. That is one of the advantages of having a non-statutory body —it can be a little more flexible, in a way that is different from something that is encased in legislation, where the words “necessarily this” or “necessarily that” may apply.

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is, I suppose, at the other end of the process. Although it is ACoBA’s remit to look at the exit end of the process, the entry end is also bound around with codes of conduct—the ministerial code and the codes of conduct expected of civil servants. Crucial to those are of course the principles of public life. While we are on the subject of principles that govern what we are talking about here, I should say that we expect a high degree of principles and of ethical behaviour from anybody who comes in to work for the public sector—that is the least that both their employer and the taxpayer expect. However, I wonder whether it would ever be feasible to systematise that and have someone checking every dot on the i and cross on the t of how that could be done. That is a slightly different part of the process from the one we would be looking at ACoBA to deal with.
I did want to talk about transparency, because it is one way in which we can also look to gain accountability in the area of appointments after public service. ACoBA publishes a considerable amount of information on the applications it receives, and Departments do the same where it is their responsibility to do so. That advice is published online, in full, once an appointment is taken up, and Departments publish summary information regarding civil servants’ applications on a quarterly basis. What those methods do is very important. They provide a reputational check and balance. Hypothetically speaking, if I were a future employer of somebody and I felt they had not been honest about something which I could very easily scrutinise, I might think twice about employing them. We have a clear and open system, and it has a very human point at its heart. The Government believe that is helpful and sufficient to ensure that the public have the information they need for transparency and accountability purposes.
We have noted in our responses to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s previous reports on this issue that there are certain areas where the current system may be tightened, and I would like to go into those now in order to outline to Committee members and others who are here this afternoon the changes we have made. First, the ministerial code is clear that Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. The code contains an explicit prohibition on former Ministers from lobbying Government for two years following their departure from office, and they must also seek advice from ACoBA about any outside appointments and abide by that advice. To reinforce that requirement, the most recent version of the code appends a full version of the rules and includes new wording to make it clear that new appointments should not be taken up or announced until ACoBA has had the opportunity to provide its advice. Hon. Members will find that important in the context of examples they have given this afternoon.
In addition, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has recently written to ministerial colleagues reminding them of the importance of the business appointment rules in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of our public servants. We have also taken steps to improve awareness of our compliance with the rules at departmental level and to improve Departments’ monitoring of compliance issues. These actions are largely in response to recommendations made by my hon. Friend’s Select  Committee in its latest report on this issue, and I thank him and the Committee for their continued interest. I particularly wanted to be able to set out today how we have made those changes and the way in which they take the issue forward.
The Cabinet Office has also recently issued updated guidance to Departments on administering the rules on working with ACoBA. This guidance includes a number of new points, including increasing clarity on how the rules apply to civil servants on career breaks, ensuring that all applications from former permanent secretaries are countersigned by the Cabinet Secretary and encouraging Departments to consider an individual’s compliance with the business appointment rules in the future, should they wish to return to Government service. [Interruption.] Dangerously, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am now going to pause for a glass of water. I await a heavyweight intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. However, none is forthcoming. [Interruption.] I shall now complete my remarks, so that the House can move on to the important matters that await it in the next debate.
In addition, if a former Minister or senior civil servant is nominated for an honour, ACoBA will be consulted on an individual’s compliance with the business appointment rules as part of the honours and appointments secretariat’s existing vetting process. Finally, the chief executive of the civil service and the Government lead non-executive have written to the chairs of each of the departmental audit and risk committees, requiring them to monitor on a quarterly basis a Department’s performance on ensuring compliance with the business appointment rules. In our view, the amendments that I have listed for the House today, which will also be incorporated into the civil service management code in due course, will help to tighten and strengthen the processes that underpin the subject of today’s debate. They will also raise awareness and improve compliance with the rules.
In summary—[Interruption.] All I need is for some scenery to begin to collapse behind me; then I would have had the perfect afternoon in the Chamber. In summary, in the Government’s view, ACoBA’s primary role is, and should remain, to provide independent advice on the application of the business appointment rules on outside appointments to Ministers and the most senior Crown servants after they leave office. The Government’s view remains that the current rules strike the right balance between preventing conflicts of interest and recognising the necessary freedom of individuals to earn a living without unreasonable hindrance after they leave public service.

Rupa Huq: I would be the first to say that Ealing has some great schools; I know that as I am a product of them myself, I use them as a mum, and I am the sort of MP who goes to assemblies. I will go to my first school fête on Saturday—at Montpelier School, my old primary.
However, I also recognise that the formal school system is not for everyone, and that is what this petition is about. It has been spearheaded by Jackie Fahy of Chiswick and is backed by people from all over my constituency—the Freely family of Ealing, the Carberry family of Acton, Elizabeth Howard, Sarah Bignell and loads of other people. Their issue is about safeguards for people who home-educate their kids and the need for there not to be overbearing regulation. I understand that this is the first such petition of hundreds that have been received by Members on both sides of the House; I just seem to have been the first to have got here.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidelines and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of South West Surrey,
Declares that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated; further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidelines and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002164]

Peter Heaton-Jones: I relish this opportunity to raise this important issue, which is hugely significant—not only to my constituents in North Devon, but across the country. It is, of course, extremely significant at the moment, during the lead-up to Armed Forces Day on Saturday.
It is worth saying, perhaps for the benefit of those watching these proceedings from outside, that no inference should be drawn from the, sadly, rather small number of colleagues in the House today. That is absolutely not a reflection of the extraordinarily high regard in which all Members view members of the armed forces and veterans; it is purely, I am afraid, a product of the parliamentary timetable and the fact that many colleagues will now be on their way to their constituencies to take part in events for Armed Forces Day this weekend.
I start on a personal note by sharing my own grandfather’s story. He fought in the great war and enrolled at the start of the conflict. He told the Army that he was born in 1895. When he passed away 60 years later, we discovered the truth: he had lied about his age. He was so eager to serve King and country that he had signed up as a 15-year-old boy.
One hundred years after the end of the first world war, I am now the proud custodian of my grandfather’s service medals and ribbons, but I am ashamed to say that we know nothing else of his part in the conflict. Like many of his generation, he never talked about it. He was alive until I was 10 years old, but I do not recall having a single conversation with him about his part in the war—that is just the way it was for that generation.
How times have changed, and rightly so. Today we are far more aware of the service of our armed forces veterans. We understand much better the challenges they face, and we openly acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe them, but with that greater understanding comes difficult questions. Questions about whether society and the state are doing enough to support our veterans and to provide them with the assistance they need and deserve. That is the focus of my thoughts today.
There are around 2.5 million veterans in the UK. It depends on how we count, but that is the best figure. My county of Devon has the highest number of veterans as a proportion of its population of any county in the UK. We have some 100,000 veterans living in Devon. Many of them are in my constituency of North Devon, where of course we have a very proud historical connection with the military. It is the home of Royal Marines Base Chivenor, which my right hon. Friend the Minister visited earlier this year. Until recently, we also had an Army base at Fremington. There is also a military establishment at Instow.
North Devon is also home to veterans who have served in many military establishments across Devon and, indeed, the rest of the south-west. It has a proud historical connection with the armed services, so I take a particular interest in all these matters.
The centrepiece of our country’s contract with our armed services veterans is the armed forces covenant, which is a promise by the nation that those who serve or  have served, and their families, will be treated fairly and suffer no disadvantage. It also allows for special consideration, especially and most importantly where a veteran has been injured or a family bereaved.
The covenant has achieved a great deal since its inception in 2011. It is now embedded in the NHS constitution, and all local authorities in Great Britain, as well as more than 2,500 other organisations and businesses, are now signed up to its principles, but there is always more we can do to support our veterans. I am encouraged by the fact that this Government have gone further and established the ministerial covenant and veterans board better to co-ordinate central Government’s approach to our service personnel and to veterans and their families. Local delivery is supported by the covenant fund of £10 million a year in perpetuity, which funds projects across the UK.
That is all to be welcomed, but I have mentioned that there are difficult questions and there are challenges, and these cannot be ignored because, for some of our veterans, those disadvantages are foremost. I will focus on three issues, but chief among them is mental health.
In Devon it is estimated that almost one in six of our veterans has complex mental health needs, which is an issue that will no doubt grow in importance in the coming years. Over the next decade or so the veterans population will experience a dramatic shift from the second world war cohort of largely conscripted former service personnel to a younger cohort of professional servicemen and women who fought in very different conflicts and therefore face very different challenges. They fought in conflicts or took part in peacekeeping duties in theatres such as Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falkland Islands, the Balkan countries and many, many more.
Mental ill health, often presenting itself in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder, is in many cases an invisible condition. Not only does the state need to take greater notice, but society needs to change its attitude, too. That is something in which I take a particular interest, ranging across not just our former armed forces personnel but many others who are living with mental ill health.
I therefore welcome the Defence Secretary’s recent pledge to increase funding for armed forces mental health services to £220 million over the next decade, and of course, as we heard recently, NHS budgets across the board are increasing, which is a start, but we must ensure that a significant chunk of that new money is targeted at those who need help with mental health conditions. Our growing understanding of the long-term impacts of active service and the changing nature of our veteran communities means we should look to go further, too.
To that end, I am encouraged by the establishment of the veterans strategy which will look to address the changing needs of our armed services personnel and improve mental health support. I very much look forward to its publication in November, and I am sure the Minister will talk more about that in his remarks.
We must also acknowledge the excellent work being undertaken by many charities, voluntary bodies and third sector organisations. It is invidious to just pull out a couple for mention as there are many and I wish to acknowledge all of them, but I mention in particular the charities Combat Stress and the Royal Foundation  of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, which works to support the “access pathway” into the NHS for veterans suffering from mental health problems. They are all doing very worthwhile work.

Luke Pollard: I thank a fellow west country MP for giving way.
There are places like Plymouth and Portsmouth, and clearly north Devon as well, that are doing so much to embed the covenant into all aspects of the public services, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that this must not be a document that gathers dust on a local council’s or local business’s bookshelf; it needs to be lived and breathed and implemented every single day to make it real?

Peter Heaton-Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and that is precisely the point I am seeking to come on to. Signing up to the covenant is not enough; there needs to be active participation by those who sign on the dotted line.
Another difficulty is that a lack of familiarity with the services available often prevents some veterans and their families from seeking the help and support that they need. That is why I am delighted that Devon  County Council has established a website—a one-stop shop—that serves as an online directory of services and support for veterans and their families. The Devon Forces Family website hosts dedicated information in a single place, making it quick and easy for all those connected with our armed forces to access the services and assistance they need. In particular, websites such as Devon Forces Family can help veterans and their families to find suitable housing, and therefore complement central Government policy.
The Government are helping forces families to get on the property ladder by, for example, making loans totalling £163 million to help more than 10,000 forces personnel to get on or stay on the property ladder. Veterans need to be availed of similar opportunities, and I hope that a way can be found to ensure that that can happen. Communication is key and co-operation across different levels of Government is essential. For those seeking social housing, local authorities must ensure that changes to the law, which have been designed to ensure that veterans with urgent housing needs are prioritised, are fairly and properly implemented in their area. We must be sure that all statutory bodies that are responsible for delivering on those changes are doing so, and that they are making sure that veterans receive the practical help that they need, targeted to them in a timely and efficient manner.
When we think about support for our armed forces veterans, there is a third aspect. I say at the outset that I take close notice of the Standing Orders as they relate to matters that are sub judice. It is perhaps the elephant in the room: the issue of historical prosecutions. The issue has been and is being considered elsewhere more widely, so I shall not comment on individual cases, except to say that I am taking an extremely close interest in one in my own constituency. It is a matter that is, understandably, causing concern to veterans in my constituency and elsewhere. Indeed, I have had a great deal of correspondence from veterans, and I met a number of them in my constituency surgery recently to discuss the issue. I understand their concerns.
Let me pose this question: do we really want our veterans to have to worry about hearing a knock on the door and being hauled before a court to be held to account to today’s standards for alleged offences that happened more than 20, 30 or even 40 years ago—incidents that happened when young servicemen, sometimes only teenagers themselves, were facing threats the likes of which most of us can only imagine? I add my voice to the growing support for a statute of limitations, which would see soldiers exempted from prosecutions after 10 years had passed. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) for securing Monday’s Adjournment debate on the issue, which many of us stayed late to hear.
Let me be clear: that is not to say that these sorts of cases should be swept under the carpet and not dealt with at all. I recognise that closure is extremely important. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Office consultation, which is currently seeking views on how better to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. That consultation closes on 10 September; I urge veterans and interested parties to take part and have their voice heard.
For now, as we approach Armed Forces Day, I wish to achieve a number of things, and I am sure that the Government have the same ambition. Let us ensure that  we continue to do all we can to provide the help and support that our veterans need. As a Government, let us leave no stone unturned when it comes to ensuring that we are doing all we can. It is not just about money and resources; it is about using those resources more smartly by making information more widely available, making sure that we have joined-up thinking across all the statutory bodies and third-sector organisations that work with veterans, and recognising in the first place the growing challenge that veterans face, particularly when it comes to their mental health.
Let us acknowledge and support the outstanding work that is being done, and let us do what my grandfather and I never had the chance to do: let us talk with pride about the service of our veterans, and in doing so recognise that we owe them all the help and support that they require, as well as a huge debt of gratitude, not only on Armed Forces day but on every day of the year—

Tobias Ellwood: May I begin with a declaration of interest as a colonel in the reserves?
As is customary on these occasions, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) on securing this important Adjournment debate. May I thank him also for an absolutely delightful and educational visit to Chivenor? It was a pleasure to go down there to see the Marines and the activities that are going on and also to understand what is happening as we rationalise the real estate of the armed forces. I am grateful for his interest in that matter. I am also thankful that he has drawn the House’s attention to this important issue of mental health and to the support for veterans, too.
My hon. Friend mentioned his grandfather. He tells a tale of a 15-year-old who wanted to serve King and country and to lie on the sign-up sheets. That was repeated across the country. Massive tribute should be paid to the dedication, the loyalty, the commitment and the bravery of people stepping out into the unknown, unsure of what to do, but knowing also that it was the right thing to do. I pay huge tribute to his grandfather. I know that his action was repeated up and down the country.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Armed Forces Day. This debate is absolutely timely, as we celebrate, mark and reflect on the role that the armed forces play in our society. The bond between our armed forces and society is critical. We recruit from society. That is our gene pool, and it is where we want to attract people from, so that we have an armed force by consent of the nation. Therefore, that relationship that we have is absolutely pivotal if we want to keep the professionalism of our armed forces, which are revered and respected across the world.
I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State will be in Llandudno in north Wales, leading the focal point of Armed Forces Day celebrations, which will be repeated up and down the country as we pay our tributes. I see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) is nodding. Last year, I went to the Armed Forces Day celebrations in his constituency, and they were fantastic.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that these celebrations mark the end of the second world war; they also mark the 100th anniversary of the RAF, so we have another opportunity this weekend for us to say thanks to those in uniform.
Interestingly, Northern Ireland celebrates its Armed Forces Day a week earlier. Last weekend, I was in Coleraine in Northern Ireland. Having served there myself, may I just say what a pleasure it was to be able to see the bands, the infanteers and those in uniform marching down the high street of Coleraine with the absolute support of the public? It was absolutely gratifying to see that because when I served in Northern Ireland, we could not even move from one place to another unless we were on patrol in uniform. Again, it is an illustration of that important bond between society and our armed forces.
My hon. Friend raises this matter of support for veterans with a focus on mental health and other issues. I was pleased to give evidence this Tuesday at the Defence Committee’s evidence session on armed forces veterans and mental health. This morning, I had the opportunity to speak at the Queen Elizabeth conference centre to the Forces in Mind Trust. This is an important body that helps to provide accurate data on exactly what is going on with our veterans and our armed forces. My hon. Friend mentioned that there are 2.5 million veterans. The profile of our veterans community is likely to change over the next 10 years. It will decrease by about 1 million because we will very sadly lose those who fought in the second world war.
As we are talking about the honesty and clarity of the data we need, I want to take the opportunity to emphasise up front that life in the armed forces is a rewarding and fantastic experience. The vast majority of personnel serve well, transition well and leave well. The nation has benefited from their service, and continues to benefit from their service once they have packed up their uniform and slid it across to the quartermaster that final time. We benefit because of the unique set of skills that people learn in the armed forces: leadership, teamwork, grit, tenacity, determination and a bit of attitude. Those are skillsets that any employer would want.
The majority of veterans transition back into society without a problem at all. Some 90% of people who have gone through our transition programmes are back in education or employment within six months of leaving  the armed forces. When we have debates, it is therefore important that we emphasise this point and try to remove the negative myths about our armed forces that still abound.
One of those myths is that people who serve somehow come out damaged. I am afraid that people have the perception that if someone is wearing a uniform or did wear the uniform, they will somehow be damaged. Lord Ashcroft’s helpful report confirmed that that is absolutely not the case, as everyone who is close to the armed forces knows. If these myths perpetuate and we do not put the challenges in perspective, it can affect the reputation of the whole of the armed forces, it can affect employers who might think of recruiting somebody who was in the armed forces and it gives false perceptions of the experience. Veterans are no more likely to commit suicide, to have post-traumatic stress disorder or to have mental health issues than people in the general population.
That said, we are not complacent. We recognise that there are those who experience difficulties and need help, and we must be there to provide that help. We have brought forward the armed forces covenant to ensure that responsibility, which often goes way beyond the Ministry of Defence into other Government Departments. We want to ensure that those responsible are actually doing the things that they have to do in this regard.

Mary Creagh: The Minister is making an excellent contribution. When I visited the Community Awareness Programme in my constituency, people told me about the large number of homeless veterans coming through their doors. The Minister is making a point about the liaison with local authorities and homelessness charities to provide specialist support to veterans who may have mental health needs that have not been addressed. That is very important, as such support can enable them to hold down a home, rebuild their families and enter civvy street again with dignity.

Tobias Ellwood: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the charity she mentioned. She makes a valid point, and I will come to the issue of homelessness in a second.
I stress that it is important to treat the issue of mental health with due concern, but we must also put it into perspective when we look at wider society. The issue has stayed in the shadows not just in the armed forces, but across society; there has been a stigma surrounding mental health, and it has become secondary to physical injuries. Yet, we need to recognise that a third of us are likely to be affected by mental health issues at some point in our lives.
If these early mental health issues are not challenged and are left unaddressed, they can effect a downwards spiral that reduces confidence, has an impact on employment, destroys relationships, feeds loneliness and, in extreme cases, leads to homelessness and suicide. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive overhaul of how we deal with mental health. We launched a new mental health strategy last year that promotes positive mental health and wellbeing—we now speak of it as mental fitness—to ensure that it is on a par with physical fitness. We need to ensure that we prevent people from experiencing the effects of mental health issues to begin with, but also that if they are affected, there is good detection, so that we can recognise and analyse it. With detection comes treatment, and following treatment comes recovery.  We need to remove the stigma. We need to change the culture not just in society but in the armed forces, so that it is okay for someone to put their hand up and say that they are suffering from something, or for someone to point out that a friend, spouse and so on has an issue.
Those are the changes we are introducing, to ensure that every captain of a ship, every platoon commander and every individual is aware that it is okay to step forward and that help is available. I am really pleased that the Secretary of State is passionate about that. One of the first things he did in his role was to introduce a 24/7 helpline, working with Combat Stress, to ensure that there is a number to call, with professional help on the other end of the line. That now applies to those in the armed forces and veterans.
We have introduced a wave of measures for veterans. My hon. Friend covered them articulately, but I will touch on them briefly. First, the veterans gateway provides online access to a variety of veterans charities. I join him in paying a huge tribute to the incredible work that more than 400 military-facing charities do to provide those serving in our armed forces and those who have retired with the necessary support. However, if someone is homeless or unemployed, which charity do they turn to? It is important that there is a simple, single online gateway—there is also a telephone line—that gives advice and directs people to the necessary support.
My hon. Friend touched on the veterans board. It is imperative that we co-ordinate the work of Government Departments—whether it is the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education or the Department for Work and Pensions—and the devolved Administrations, because they all have a responsibility. Local government is also critical, and that is where we need to do more work. As has been mentioned, there are fine authorities such as those in Portsmouth and Plymouth that are familiar with the armed forces because they have military assets in their neighbourhood. We need to ensure that every local authority in the country recognises its obligations to the covenant and has an armed forces champion—one senior director who does not necessarily do the work up front but directs all aspects of work to ensure that support is available for veterans. That is new, and we need to work on it.
My hon. Friend touched on the veterans strategy and invited me to say a bit more about it. It will be launched in November and, again, is an initiative of the Defence Secretary. It focuses on four themes: first, looking at perceptions and trying to remove the myths surrounding the challenges that we face; secondly, improving co-ordination between the support that is out there; thirdly, offering a cultural shift in our attitudes towards veterans; and finally, there will be studies on specific areas, including mental health and homelessness, which we know are bigger issues that we need to pay more attention to.
Let me be the first to recognise that while we have done significant work and have some incredible projects coming through, there is an awful lot more to do to sharpen the practical impact of the covenant and ensure that we do our best to provide support for our brave veterans. We are immensely proud of our armed forces, given what they do for the nation. Our commitment to them must go beyond equipping and training them well as they serve, to supporting them after they leave.   In society, not just in defence, as we become more comfortable in talking about and understanding mental health, everyone can play their part.
In conclusion, as we approach Armed Forces Day, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. Let us further encourage people to think differently about our ex-service personnel. Whether as former soldiers, sailors or air personnel, reservists or MPs representing our proud  and patriotic constituents, we all have a role in making this happen. We all know what our veterans have done in the past for our country, but we also know that they still have lots to give our nation in the future. We need to make sure that we put our considerable energies together to get that message out there.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.